Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Justice Department. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Justice Department. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 22, 2025

"Off the Record" Is Not Retroactive

  Anna Bower at Lawfare reports a text exchange with prosecutor Lindsay Halligan:

Through the whole of our correspondence, however, there is something Halligan never said: She never said a word suggesting that she was not “on the record.

It is not uncommon for federal prosecutors to communicate with the press, both through formal channels and sometimes informally. My exchange with Halligan, however, was highly unusual in a number of respects. She initiated a conversation with me, a reporter she barely knew, to discuss an ongoing prosecution that she is personally handling. She mostly criticized my reporting—or, more precisely, my summary of someone else’s reporting. But several of her messages contained language that touched on grand jury matters, even as she insisted that she could not reveal such information, which is protected from disclosure by prosecutors under federal law.

As a legal journalist covering the Justice Department, I had never encountered anything quite like my exchange with Halligan. Neither had my editor. Over the last several days, he and I spoke with multiple former federal officials and journalists who cover the justice system. None could recall a similar instance in which a sitting U.S. attorney reached out to chastise a reporter about matters concerning grand jury testimony in an active case.

...

After I reached out to the department for comment on Halligan’s texts, Halligan texted me yet again, for the first time in several days, insisting that our entire correspondence had been off the record. Our full exchange, linked below, allows readers to make their own judgments on that question.

...

Halligan had said quite a lot during our correspondence, although much of it was hard for me to parse. But there was an important thing she had not said during the entirety of our communications: “Off the record” or “On background” or anything whatsoever about the terms on which we were talking.

As anyone who professionally engages with the media as routinely as Halligan would know, the default assumption when a reporter speaks with a public official is that everything is “on the record,” meaning that anything the source says can be printed with attribution. If the source wishes to speak confidentially, she can negotiate how the information will be used. “On background” means that the information the source provides to a journalist can be published, so long as the journalist doesn’t reveal the source’s name or identifying information. “Off the record” means the reporter can’t print what the source tells them at all. There are other variations too. But with any condition, a fundamental premise is that the reporter must agree to speak on that basis.


In the course of my work as a journalist, I frequently agree to speak with sources on background or off the record. I take my duty of confidentiality seriously and I have never burned a source by revealing confidential communications.


I certainly would have been willing to speak with Halligan on background or off the record. But she never raised the terms on which we were speaking at any point during the two days in which we exchanged texts.

Sunday, September 7, 2025

Autopen Pardons

Previous posts have discussed the president's pardon power.

 Alex Thompson at Axios:

High-ranking Biden administration officials repeatedly questioned and criticized how the president's team decided on controversial pardons and allowed the frequent use of an autopen to sign measures late in his term, internal emails obtained by Axios show.

Why it matters: The messages are the latest signs of the chaos surrounding the 82-year-old former president during the final weeks of his administration, in two areas that are now being investigated by the Republican-led House Oversight Committee.

President Trump has cited Biden's process in issuing pardons to try to justify many of his own controversial pardons or commutations on behalf of donor-connected supporters and others who were imprisoned for trying to overturn the 2020 election.

How it happened: After the political backlash to President Biden pardoning his son Hunter last Dec. 1, the White House began pushing to find more people to grant clemency to, according to people familiar with the internal dynamics.

"There was a mad dash to find groups of people that he could then pardon — and then they largely didn't run it by the Justice Department to vet them," a person familiar with the process told Axios.
Biden granted clemency to more people than any president in U.S. history — 4,245 people. More than 95% of those actions occurred in the final 3½ months of his presidency, according to Pew Research.
Many of those actions, including pardoning other members of his family on his last day in office, were signed using an autopen — a computerized version of the president's signature that didn't require him to physically sign the document.


Tuesday, July 15, 2025

Ethics and Oaths

Many posts have discussed oaths of office.

AG Bondi fired Joseph W. Tirrell. He posted his response on LinkedIn:

Until Friday evening, I was the senior ethics attorney at the Department of Justice responsible for advising the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General directly on federal employee ethics. I was also responsible for the day-to-day operations of the ethics program across the Department. I led a small, dedicated team of professionals and coordinated the work of some 30 other full-time ethics officials, attorneys, paralegals and other specialists across the Department of Justice, ensuring that the 117,000 Department employees were properly advised on and supported in how to follow the Federal employee ethics rules.

My career in public service has so far spanned a quarter of a century. I started as a United States Naval Officer, graduating from the ROTC program at the University of Michigan. After a 6-year military career, I earned a law Degree from the Detroit School of Law at Michigan State University. I started at the FBI in 2006 in the Presidential Management Fellows Program. At the FBI, I worked in a variety of offices thanks to the PMF program and eventually I went to work for the FBI’s Office of Integrity and Compliance. From there, I moved to the Departmental Ethics Office at Main Justice as Deputy Director. Finally, in 2023, I was promoted to the Senior Executive Service and the Position of Director of the Ethics Office.

My public service is not over, and my career as a Federal civil servant is not finished. I took the oath at 18 as a Midshipman to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” I have taken that oath at least five more times since then. That oath did not come with the caveat that I need only support the Constitution when it is easy or convenient.

Saturday, June 28, 2025

"There's a Flip Side to That Coin."

 A number of posts have discussed "Miles' Law," that is, where you stand depends on where you sitAttitudes toward procedures and institutions depend on whether you control them.  At Axios, Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen write:

Through silence or vocal support, House and Senate Republicans are backing an extraordinary set of new precedents for presidential power they may come to regret if and when Democrats seize those same powers.

Here are 10 new precedents, all set with minimal GOP dissent: 

  1. Presidents can limit the classified information they share with lawmakers after bombing a foreign country without the approval of Congress.
  2.  Presidents can usurp Congress's power to levy tariffs, provided they declare a national emergency.
  3. Presidents can unilaterally freeze spending approved by Congress, and dismantle or fire the heads of independent agencies established by law.
  4. Presidents can take control of a state's National Guard, even if the governor opposes it, and occupy the state for as long as said president wants.
  5. Presidents can accept gifts from foreign nations, as large as a $200 million plane, even if it's unclear whether said president gets to keep the plane at the end of the term.
  6. Presidents can actively profit from their time in office, including creating new currencies structured to allow foreign nationals to invest anonymously, benefiting said president.
  7. Presidents can try to browbeat the Federal Reserve into cutting interest rates, including by floating replacements for the Fed chair before their term is up.
  8. Presidents can direct the Justice Department to prosecute their political opponents and punish critics. These punishments can include stripping Secret Service protections, suing them and threatening imprisonment.
  9. Presidents can punish media companies, law firms and universities that don't share their viewpoints or values.
  10. Presidents can aggressively pardon supporters, including those who made large political donations as part of their bid for freedom. The strength of the case in said pardons is irrelevant.

Between the lines: Friday's Supreme Court ruling limiting nationwide injunctions — a decision widely celebrated by Republicans — underscores the risks of partisan precedent-setting.Conservatives sped to the courts to block many of President Biden's signature policies — and succeeded.

And since losing control of the Senate, Democrats have gone quiet on abolishing the filibuster. 

For decades, Democrats said that the term "states' rights" was coded racism -- until they used the term in defense of same-sex marriage.


Wednesday, May 7, 2025

Fentanyl Madness

Many posts have discussed myths and misinformationSome whoppers involve drugs.

Lev Facher at STAT:

In recent months, federal prosecutors indicted a Georgia man for “possessing enough fentanyl to kill up to 500,000 individuals.” A sheriff in South Carolina announced the seizure of fentanyl that “had the potential to kill more than 800,000 people.” Perhaps most impressively, California Highway Patrol officers estimated they seized enough of the opioid to kill “a quarter of the population” of the entire state — some 10 million people.

Last week, however, Attorney General Pam Bondi put other law enforcement to shame with a staggering new claim: that drug busts during the first 100 days of the Trump administration had saved 119 million lives. (She soon issued a correction, announcing at last week’s Cabinet meeting that the true figure was more than twice as high: 258 million.)
The claim is implausible on many levels. Nowhere near 258 million Americans use drugs that could even potentially contain fentanyl. The large majority of fentanyl is consumed by a tiny subset of Americans with vastly higher tolerances than the 2-milligram dose that officials say could cause an overdose in unwitting users. Even when overdoses do occur, many can be reversed using naloxone and other techniques. And by Bondi’s logic, if law enforcement continued to seize fentanyl at the same rate for another month or so, the Trump administration could claim credit for saving every single American from a fatal drug overdose.

...

In the 1930s, the first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics called marijuana “the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.” For decades, drug enforcement officials have warned of Halloween candy tainted with drugs, though no such occurrence has ever been documented. And in recent years, numerous police officers have claimed to experience opioid “overdoses” during routine interactions — despite the de facto impossibility of breathing in fentanyl or absorbing it through skin.

Saturday, April 26, 2025

Going After Journalists

Many posts have discussed freedom of the press.

 

Saturday, February 15, 2025

A Strong Letter

Many posts have discussed prosecutors.

 From WP:Hagan Scotten, the lead prosecutor in Mayor Eric Adams’s federal corruption case, has quit over the Justice Department’s demand that the case be dismissed, calling any lawyer who would move in court to toss the matter a “fool” or “coward,” according to a copy of a letter obtained Friday.

BY EMAIL 

Re: United States v. Eric Adams, 24 Cr. 556 (DEH) 

Mr. Bove,

 I have received correspondence indicating that I refused your order to move to dismiss the indictment against Eric Adams without prejudice, subject to certain conditions, including the express possibility of reinstatement of the indictment. That is not exactly correct. The U.S. Attorney, Danielle R. Sassoon, never asked me to file such a motion, and I therefore never had an opportunity to refuse. But I am entirely in agreement with her decision not to do so, for the reasons stated in her February 12, 2025 letter to the Attorney General. 

In short, the first justification for the motion—that Damian Williams's role in the case somehow tainted a valid indictment supported by ample evidence and pursued under four different U.S. attorneys is so weak as to be transparently pretextual. The second justification is worse. No system of ordered liberty can allow the Government to use the carrot of dismissing charges, or the stick of threatening to bring them again, to induce an elected official to support its policy objectives. 

There is a tradition in public service of resigning in a last-ditch effort to head off a serious mistake . Some will view the mistake you are committing here in the light of their generally negative view of the new Administration. I do not share those views. I can even understand how a Chief Executive whose background is in business and politics might see the contemplated dismissal-with-leverage as a good, if distasteful, deal. But any assistant U.S. attorney would know that our laws and traditions do not allow using the prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials, in this way. If no lawyer within earshot of the President is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me. Please consider this my resignation. It has been an honor to serve as a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York. 


Yours truly, Hagan Scotten Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of New York

Thursday, December 12, 2024

No Undercover FBI Employees in the 1/6 Mob



From the DOJ IG:
Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz announced today the release of a review examining the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) handling of its confidential human sources (CHS) and intelligence collection efforts in the lead up to the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Consistent with OIG practice, in spring 2022 the OIG paused aspects of our review to ensure that the OIG’s investigative work did not conflict with or compromise any ongoing DOJ criminal investigations or prosecutions. Having been informed by federal prosecutors last year that our review would no longer potentially interfere with pending criminal prosecutions, we resumed our work on this matter. In doing so, we were cognizant of the amount of time that had passed, as well as the number of non-DOJ OIG oversight reports that had been publicly released regarding the events of January 6. We determined that an area that had not yet been thoroughly reviewed by other entities was the FBI’s direction and handling of its CHSs in the lead-up to and on January 6, and whether the FBI exploited its CHSs and other available information to determine the nature of threats in advance of the electoral vote certification on January 6. Accordingly, we focused our review on that topic.

The findings in today’s report include:
  • The FBI Took Significant and Appropriate Steps in Advance of January 6 to Prepare for its Supporting Role. Despite playing only a supporting role in preparing for and responding to the events of January 6, the FBI recognized the potential for violence and took significant and appropriate steps to prepare for this supporting role.
  • The FBI Did Not Canvass Field Offices for Intelligence from CHSs Prior to January 6, which Could Have Helped the FBI and Law Enforcement with Their January 6 Preparations. The FBI could have taken an additional step to canvass its field offices in advance of January 6 to identify any intelligence, including CHS reporting, that might have assisted with the FBI and law enforcement partners’ preparations for January 6. FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate described the lack of a canvass prior to January 6 as a “basic step that was missed,” and told the OIG that he would have expected a formal canvassing of sources to have occurred.
  • Confusion and Lack of Coordination Contributed to the FBI’s Inaccurate Report to Congress that It Had Canvassed Field Offices. After January 6, the FBI reported to Congress that it had directed its field offices prior to January 6 to canvass their CHSs for information concerning threats in connection with the January 6 Electoral Certification. However, as noted, we found that no canvassing of field offices for source information had occurred. We found that the FBI’s statements to Congress were not intentionally inaccurate, and that confusion and lack of coordinated communications contributed to the inaccurate reporting.
  • No Undercover FBI Employees at Protests or at the Capitol on January 6. We found no evidence in the materials we reviewed or the testimony we received showing or suggesting that the FBI had undercover employees in the various protest crowds, or at the Capitol, on January 6.

Wednesday, June 12, 2024

Crime in 2024 So Far

Many posts have discussed crime in the United States.

Corky Siemaszko and Tom Costello at NBC:
The latest FBI statistics point to a "historic" drop in crime in the first quarter of this year, Attorney General Merrick Garland says.
And this, after a year in which the murder rate fell at one the fastest rates ever recorded, a top criminologist added.

"This should be good news for everybody," criminologist Jeff Asher, who analyzed the FBI numbers, told NBC News. "But it's also early June and the trend of the nation's crime rate is always uncertain."

The rate of violent and property crimes dropped precipitously in the first three months of 2024 compared to the same period last year, according to quarterly statistics released Monday by the FBI known as the Uniform Crime Report.

The murder rate fell by 26.4%, reported rapes decreased by 25.7%, robberies fell by 17.8%, aggravated assault fell by 12.5%, and the overall violent crime rate went down by 15.2%, the statistics show.

Reported property crimes also decreased by 15.1%, according to the UCR report, which the FBI compiles using crime statistics supplied to the agency by law enforcement agencies across the U.S.

Thursday, January 25, 2024

Authoritarian Playbook

 United to Protect Democracy, The Authoritarian Playbook for 2025:

 Trump’s campaign promises are extensive, as are the plans of groups working to support those promises in preparation for a second Trump term. This report, therefore, does not seek to cover them all. It also does not cover dangers posed by a second Trump term about which he has not made explicit promises or that fall outside of federal government operations, but that may pose even graver risks, such as the degree to which he uses the threat and reality of violence to achieve political ends. Those and other risks of a second Trump term also require attention, reporting, and analysis but are beyond the scope of this report. This report addresses the following topics on which he has made explicit promises and about which his allies have developed specific plans for federal government action: 
  • Pardons to License Lawbreaking: During Trump’s first term, he discovered that he could leverage the pardon power to induce witnesses against him into silence. In a second term, he has indicated he would further abuse pardons to incite political violence, incentivize lawbreaking for his benefit, and render himself above the law.
  •  Directing Investigations Against Critics and Rivals: Retribution is the dominant theme of Trump’s 2024 campaign, and his allies are making plans to eliminate the Department of Justice’s traditional prosecutorial independence to give Trump greater personal control to direct law enforcement against his perceived opponents and insulate himself from accountability. 
  • Regulatory Retaliation: In addition to steering prosecutorial discretion via the Department of Justice, Trump has vowed to consolidate and wield federal regulatory power to reward political loyalty and punish his critics, particularly those associated with the media. There are numerous reports of this regulatory retaliation happening during Trump’s first term, and plans for a second include ways of removing those obstacles that limited opportunities for more.
  • Federal Law Enforcement Overreach: Trump’s declaration that immigration is “poisoning the blood of our country” is a grim foreshadowing of how he will invoke the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime provision dating back to 1798. Once Trump has that power, he has also expressed his will to expand the footprint of federal law enforcement to police cities and shut down lawful protests.
  • Domestic Deployment of the Military: A central hallmark of American democracy is that the U.S. military not be used against American citizens. But Trump plans to abuse the Insurrection Act to order military force to quash dissent and target vulnerable communities.

Friday, December 31, 2021

The Threat of Domestic Terrorism

 Josh Meyer and Kevin Johnson at USA Today:

Washington failed to create a national strategy to counter right-wing extremism until the deadly siege of the U.S. Capitol last January triggered an urgent reassessment of the threat, according to USA TODAY interviews with dozens of current and former government officials and a review of government documents. Federal agencies were slow to recognize the threat rising from the homeland and work together to counter it. Resources were poured into international terrorism while domestic extremist groups grew and operated in the open. Some key programs at the Justice Department and elsewhere were launched, stopped and then restarted. Investigators frequently lacked key sources to help them infiltrate movements and thwart attacks. Overlaying all of that, current and former officials say, was the fact that the U.S. government lacked a coordinated and sustained strategy to combat right-wing extremism. Now, one year after the assault on the Capitol, many of those officials question whether Washington is up to the task of containing a problem that has embedded itself deeply into the fabric of America.

...

In recent years, after authorities said right-wing domestic terrorists were a threat on par with the Islamic State group, the National Counterterrorism Center expanded its purview. It now has a small unit to help the FBI and DHS on domestic extremism. Now, “it’s not just militant Islamists but also militias in Michigan,” said Seamus Hughes, deputy director of the Program on Extremism at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., and former lead National Counterterrorism Center staffer on U.S. efforts to counter violent extremism.

Tuesday, November 26, 2019

The Federalist Papers and a Court Case

DOJ’s arguments to the contrary are rooted in “the Executive’s interest in ‘autonomy[,]’” and, therefore, “rest[] upon a discredited notion of executive power and privilege.” Id. at 103. Indeed, when DOJ insists that Presidents can lawfully prevent their senior-level aides from responding to compelled congressional process and that neither the federal courts nor Congress has the power to do anything about it, DOJ promotes a conception of separation-of-powers principles that gets these constitutional commands exactly backwards. In reality, it is a core tenet of this Nation’s founding that the powers of a monarch must be split between the branches of the government to prevent tyranny. See The Federalist No. 51 (James Madison); see also Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 120 (1976). Thus, when presented with a case or controversy, it is the Judiciary’s duty under the Constitution to interpret the law and to declare government overreaches unlawful. Similarly, the House of Representatives has the constitutionally vested responsibility to conduct investigations of suspected abuses of power within the government, and to act to curb those improprieties, if required. Accordingly, DOJ’s conceptual claim to unreviewable absolute testimonial immunity on separation-of-powers grounds—essentially, that the Constitution’s scheme countenances unassailable Executive branch authority—is baseless, and as such, cannot be sustained.
...
 To the contrary, the Framers spoke specifically to the importance of maintaining an established rule of law to regulate government conduct—and, thus, to the significance of the judicial function—when they explained why a system that separates the powers of government and includes checks on the exercise of government power is crucial to sustaining a democracy:
...[T]he great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of the attack. . . . It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
The Federalist No. 51 (James Madison). The Framer’s specific reference to providing
government officials in each of the separate branches with “the necessary constitutional
means and personal motives to resist the encroachments of the others[,]” id., is especially noteworthy, because, here, DOJ’s artificial limit on the federal courts’ jurisdiction to consider disputes between the branches seemingly decreases the incentive for the Legislature or the Executive branch to behave lawfully, rather than bolsters it, by dramatically reducing the potential that a federal court will have occasion to declare conduct that violates the Constitution unlawful. And there can be no doubt that providing the branches with the power to limit each other’s behavior, for the protection of the People, was the original intent of the Framers, as evidenced both by the constitutional scheme they adopted and by the remarks they made to explain the separation-of-powers construct. Indeed, far from DOJ’s present suggestion that the separation-of-powers construct means that the political branches must resolve their disputes in the political arena and never head to federal court, Federalist No. 51 proceeds to explain that political checks are not the sole solution, and that the branches themselves must also be vested with the power to police the abuses of the others. See id. (“A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. . . . We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights.”).
...
 In short, DOJ’s implicit suggestion that compelled congressional process is a ‘zero-sum’ game in which the President’s interest in confidentiality invariably outweighs the Legislature’s interest in gathering truthful information, such that current and former senior-level presidential aides should be always and forever immune from answering probing questions, is manifestly inconsistent with a governmental scheme that can only function properly if its institutions work together. See The Federalist No. 51 (James Madison).
...
Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings. See The Federalist No. 51 (James Madison); The Federalist No. 69 (Alexander Hamilton); 1 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America 115–18 (Harvey C. Mansfield & Delba Winthrop eds. & trans., Univ. of Chicago Press 2000) (1835). This means that they do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control. Rather, in this land of liberty, it is indisputable that current and former employees of the White House work for the People of the United States, and that they take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Moreover, as citizens of the United States, current and former senior-level presidential aides have constitutional rights, including the right to free speech, and they retain these rights even after they have transitioned back into private life.

Monday, January 7, 2019

Justice and Constitutional Design

At The Hill, Stuart M. Gerson  former Acting Attorney General; Peter D. Keisler former Acting Attorney General; and Carrie Cordero former Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for National Security.
[W] hile federal law enforcement activities fall under the leadership and guidance of the Attorney General, the criminal justice system functions as an interconnected network of federal, state and local law enforcement, and federal and state judges and courts. Each official and officer in this system takes no oath to any elected official, but instead to upholding the law, and the constitution.

The decision to charge someone with a crime and bring the full weight of prosecutorial power must always be nonpartisan, and never borne of retribution, ambition or malice. Although selection of prosecutors and judges often involves political affiliation and political processes, those selections must be made in a way that brings confidence that justice will be administered without regard to politics. Americans should demand that the Justice Department be led by an Attorney General of sufficient qualifications who has been subject to the rigor and legitimacy of a Senate confirmation.

Above all, our national leaders and political partisans of all stripes must remember that we depend upon our Department of Justice to act in a fair and independent manner and with a constant eye on the rule of law. That department is not the law firm of the chief executive or any political appointee but, instead, is the representative of all the people and the abiding institutions of America.

Finally, no person is above the law. Lawyers can and will argue whether the mechanics of the criminal justice system can reach the highest office, and the details of who in government is subject to what legal process. Regardless of how the courts might resolve these types of questions, the constitution provides a system for removing corrupt officials from federal office. In any case, whether an inquiry as to removal from office derives from the current set of far-reaching investigations or otherwise, the exercise of this authority does not create a constitutional crisis; instead, it is an exercise of constitutional design.

Tuesday, May 8, 2018

The Federal Prosecutor

Attorney General Robert Jackson, December 1, 1940:
But outside of federal law each locality has the right under our system of government to fix its own standards of law enforcement and of morals. And the moral climate of the United States is as varied as its physical climate. For example, some states legalize and permit gambling, some states prohibit it legislatively and protect it administratively, and some try to prohibit it entirely. The same variation of attitudes towards other law-enforcement problems exists. The federal government could not enforce one kind of law in one place and another kind elsewhere. It could hardly adopt strict standards for loose states or loose standards for strict states without doing violence to local sentiment. In spite of the temptation to divert our power to local conditions where they have become offensive to our sense of decency, the only long-term policy that will save federal justice from being discredited by entanglements with local politics is that it confine itself to strict and impartial enforcement of federal law, letting the chips fall in the community where they may. Just as there should be no permitting of local considerations to stop federal enforcement, so there should be no striving to enlarge our power over local affairs and no use of federal prosecutions to exert an indirect influence that would be unlawful if exerted directly.

The qualities of a good prosecutor are as elusive and as impossible to define as those which mark a gentleman. And those who need to be told would not understand it anyway. A sensitiveness to fair play and sportsmanship is perhaps the best protection against the abuse of power, and the citizen's safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.

Sunday, May 6, 2018

Rosenstein on Justice

Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein Delivers Remarks at the Bar Association of Montgomery County’s Law Day CelebrationRockville, MD ~ Friday, May 4, 2018
 The interplay among the branches is incredibly complex, and our Constitution contemplates numerous checks and balances.

In the executive branch, we take an oath. We pledge to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We promise to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. We attest that we take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. And we commit to well and faithfully execute the duties of the office, so help me God.

Faithfully enforcing the law is not about following a simple set of instructions. As the great champion of the law Robert H. Jackson put it, “law enforcement is not automatic.” Enforcing the law requires discretion and judgment.

When carrying out our enforcement duties, the executive branch is required to enforce the law as written by the legislature, and as interpreted by the judiciary.

At the Department of Justice, our duty is in our name. Attorney General John Ashcroft famously said that we are the only cabinet department with a name that articulates a moral value.
...
Our Bill of Rights, containing the first ten amendments, is often regarded as the pride of American government. But the Constitution originally had no Bill of Rights. The issue was considered during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, but the Constitution was ratified without it.

The Framers were more concerned about our government’s structure than a written guarantee of rights, because a written guarantee is only as powerful as the system in place to protect it. Our constitutional structure, and the separation of powers embodied in that structure, represents our government’s defining feature.

Justice Scalia explained that “it is those other humdrum provisions—the structural, mechanistic portions of the Constitution that pit, in James Madison’s words, ‘ambition against ambition,’ and make it impossible for any element of government to obtain unchecked power— that convert the Bill of Rights from a paper assurance to a living guarantee.”

The Founders dispersed power both horizontally and vertically. The three branches of the federal government check one another. The states and the federal government check one another. And the people check both the federal and the state governments.
Our system of government is not self-executing. It relies on wisdom and self-restraint. In a democratic republic, liberty is protected by cultural norms as well as by constitutional text.
Lawyers and judges bear great responsibility for implementing and explaining those principles. The further we get from the founding generation, the less we appreciate how much everything depends on people rather than paper.

Friday, April 20, 2018

Presidents and Attorneys General

From the Comey memos:
At about this point, he asked me to compare AG Holder and AG Lynch. I said I thought AG Holder was smarter and more sophisticated and smoother than AG Lynch, who I added is a good person. He said Holder and President Obama were quite close. I replied that they were and it illustrated, in my view, a mistake Presidents make over and over again: Because they reason for a President come from Justice, they try to bring Justice close, which paradoxically makes things worse because an independent DOJ and FBI are better for a president and the country. I listed off John Mitchell, Ed Meese, and Al Gonzales as examples of this mistake, and he added Bobby Kennedy.

Thursday, December 21, 2017

The Best Words

The Trump administration is waging a linguistic battle across official Washington, seeking to shift public perception of key policies by changing the way the federal government talks about climate change, scientific evidence and disadvantaged communities.

The push drew fresh attention after employees at the Department of Health and Human Services were told to avoid certain words — including “vulnerable” “entitlement” and “diversity” — when preparing requests for next year’s budget. But the effort to disappear certain language and replace it with other terms is much broader, sparking resistance from career officials in multiple federal agencies, outside experts and congressional Democrats.

Climate change, for example, has for months presented a linguistic minefield; multiple references to it have been purged repeatedly at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department. In late summer, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention issued a document to employees and contractors bearing a column of words and phrases to be avoided, alongside a column of acceptable alternatives.

  As you know, one of the key points in the GOPAC tapes is that "language matters." In the video "We are a Majority," Language is listed as a key mechanism of control used by a majority party, along with Agenda, Rules, Attitude and Learning. As the tapes have been used in training sessions across the country and mailed to candidates we have heard a plaintive plea: "I wish I could speak like Newt."

   That takes years of practice. But, we believe that you could have a significant impact on your campaign and the way you communicate if we help a little. That is why we have created this list of words and phrases.

   This list is prepared so that you might have a directory of words to use in writing literature and mail, in preparing speeches, and in producing electronic media. The words and phrases are powerful. Read them. Memorize as many as possible. And remember that like any tool, these words will not help if they are not used.

   While the list could be the size of the latest "College Edition" dictionary, we have attempted to keep it small enough to be readily useful yet large enough to be broadly functional. The list is divided into two sections: Optimistic Positive Governing words and phrases to help describe your vision for the future of your community (your message) and Contrasting words to help you clearly define the policies and record of your opponent and the Democratic party.

   Please let us know if you have any other suggestions or additions. We would also like to know how you use the list. Call us at GOPAC or write with your suggestions and comments. We may include them in the next tape mailing so that others can benefit from your knowledge and experience.

Optimistic Positive Governing Words
   Use the list below to help define your campaign and your vision of public service. These words can help give extra power to your message. In addition, these words help develop the positive side of the contrast you should create with your opponent, giving your community something to vote for!
  • active(ly)
  • activist
  • building
  • candid(ly)
  • care(ing)
  • challenge
  • change
  • children
  • choice/choose
  • citizen
  • commitment
  • common sense
  • compete
  • confident
  • conflict
  • control
  • courage
  • crusade
  • debate
  • dream
  • duty
  • eliminate good-time in prison
  • empower(ment)
  • fair
  • family
  • freedom
  • hard work
  • help
  • humane
  • incentive
  • initiative
  • lead
  • learn
  • legacy
  • liberty
  • light
  • listen
  • mobilize
  • moral
  • movement
  • opportunity
  • passionate
  • peace
  • pioneer
  • precious
  • premise
  • preserve
  • principle(d)
  • pristine
  • pro- (issue): flag, children, environment, reform
  • prosperity
  • protect
  • proud/pride
  • provide
  • reform
  • rights
  • share
  • strength
  • success
  • tough
  • truth
  • unique
  • vision
  • we/us/our
Contrasting Words
   Often we search hard for words to define our opponents. Sometimes we are hesitant to use contrast. Remember that creating a difference helps you. These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast. Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party.
  • abuse of power
  • anti- (issue): flag, family, child, jobs
  • betray
  • bizarre
  • bosses
  • bureaucracy
  • cheat
  • coercion
  • "compassion" is not enough
  • collapse(ing)
  • consequences
  • corrupt
  • corruption
  • criminal rights
  • crisis
  • cynicism
  • decay
  • deeper
  • destroy
  • destructive
  • devour
  • disgrace
  • endanger
  • excuses
  • failure (fail)
  • greed
  • hypocrisy
  • ideological
  • impose
  • incompetent
  • insecure
  • insensitive
  • intolerant
  • liberal
  • lie
  • limit(s)
  • machine
  • mandate(s)
  • obsolete
  • pathetic
  • patronage
  • permissive attitude
  • pessimistic
  • punish (poor ...)
  • radical
  • red tape
  • self-serving
  • selfish
  • sensationalists
  • shallow
  • shame
  • sick
  • spend(ing)
  • stagnation
  • status quo
  • steal
  • taxes
  • they/them
  • threaten
  • traitors
  • unionized
  • urgent (cy)
  • waste
  • welfare

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Sally Yates v. Trump

On January 27, 2017, the President signed an Executive Order regarding immigrants and
refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries. The order has now been challenged in a number of jurisdictions. As the Acting Attorney General, it is my ultimate  esponsibility to determine the position of the Department of Justice in these actions.
My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through
administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC’s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC’s view, a proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted. Its review does not take account of statements made by an administration or it surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose. And importantly, it does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.
Similarly, in litigation, DOJ Civil Division lawyers are charged with advancing
reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order. But my role as leader of this institution is different and broader. My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts. In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.
Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of
Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.
CNN reports:
Video of Yates' 2015 confirmation hearing as deputy attorney general shows Sen. Jeff Sessions grilling her about her responsibility to then-President Barack Obama should he require her to execute "unlawful" views. Sessions is now Donald Trump's pick to lead the Justice Department.
"You have to watch out because people will be asking you to do things and you need to say no. You think the attorney general has the responsibility to say no to the President if he asks for something that's improper?" Sessions asks Yates.
"A lot of people have defended the Lynch nomination, for example by saying, 'Well, he appoints somebody who's going to execute his views, what's wrong with that?' " the GOP senator from Alabama asks, referring to Obama's 2014 nomination of Loretta Lynch as attorney general.
"But if the views the President wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say no?"
Yates replies: "Senator, I believe the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution and to give their independent legal advice to the President."


 

Sunday, January 8, 2017

Reagan and the Law

At Bloomberg, Cass Sunstein recalls his time as a young lawyer in the Justice Department.  The Reaganites, he said, came in and did two smart things.
First, they reassured an anxious civil service. Within the Justice Department, for example, no one doubted that important policies were going to shift, sometimes in dramatic ways. But William French Smith, Reagan’s incoming attorney general, made it clear to career staffers that he deeply admired their traditions and their professionalism. Far from giving federal employees a sense of opposition and suspicion, he said (and demonstrated every day) that he liked and respected them.
Theodore Olson, the new head of the Office of Legal Counsel, where I worked, did the same thing -- and more. Charming and warm, he offered an immediate sense of humility, emphasizing how much he had to learn.
Within a month, lawyers who had faithfully served a Democratic administration had become fiercely loyal to Smith and Olson, and were proud to work for them. That was critical for the new president, because he had to depend on thousands of career staff for both information and execution.
Second, Reagan and his team sent unambiguous signals about the primacy of law. Many of Reagan’s supporters wanted him to venture some pretty dramatic changes -- for example, overruling Roe v. Wade (which protects the right to abortion) by congressional enactment; stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction in controversial areas; getting federal judges out of the business of school desegregation; and restoring school prayer.


Early on, however, the White House made it clear to the government’s lawyers that it wanted objective legal advice. Even more important, the ultimate authorities (including the president) bowed to that advice, even if it turned out to be a firm “no.” If the Department of Justice said that a particular course of action was legally unauthorized, the White House wouldn’t pursue it.

Thursday, April 9, 2015

How Many Crimes?

George Will writes:
In 2009, Harvey Silverglate’s bookThree Felonies a Day” demonstrated how almost any American could be unwittingly guilty of various crimes between breakfast and bedtime. Silverglate, a defense lawyer and civil libertarian, demonstrated the dangers posed by the intersection of prosecutorial ingenuity with the expansion of the regulatory state.
In 2013, Glenn Harlan Reynolds, University of Tennessee law professor and creator of Instapundit, published in the Columbia Law Review “Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything is a Crime.” Given the axiom that a competent prosecutor can persuade a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, and given the proliferation of criminal statutes and regulations backed by criminal penalties, what becomes of the mens rea principle that people deserve criminal punishment only if they engage in conduct that is inherently wrong or that they know to be illegal?
Now comes “Rethinking Presumed Knowledge of the Law in the Regulatory Age” (Tennessee Law Review) by Michael Anthony Cottone, a federal judicial clerk. Cottone warns that as the mens rea requirement withers when the quantity and complexity of laws increase, the doctrine ofignorantia legis neminem excusat — ignorance of the law does not excuse — becomes problematic. The regulatory state is rendering unrealistic the presumption that a responsible citizen should be presumed to have knowledge of the law.
There are an estimated 4,500 federal criminal statutes — and innumerable regulations backed by criminal penalties that include incarceration. Even if none of these were arcane, which many are, their sheer number would mean that Americans would not have clear notice of what behavior is proscribed or prescribed.