Full Text: DOJ Indicts Ex-Clinton Attorney Michael Sussmann

September 16, 2021

Bill Barr-appointed DOJ special prosecutor, John Durham, filed a criminal indictment against Michael Sussmann, Perkins Coie attorney and former attorney for the Clinton Campaign, today, September 16, 2021. The following excerpt from an article published in Politico on September 16, 2021, provides the basic context for the indictment. (The complete article may be found at this link: “Special prosecutor John Durham charges ex-attorney for Clinton campaign with lying to FBI.“)

“The special prosecutor probing the origins of the federal investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, John Durham, has charged Washington lawyer Michael Sussmann with lying to the FBI during the early stages of the inquiry.

Sussmann, who worked through his firm as an attorney for the Hillary Clinton campaign, is accused in a grand jury indictment returned Thursday of a single felony count of making a false statement during a September 2016 meeting with FBI General Counsel James Baker.

Prosecutors allege Sussmann lied by denying that he was representing any client as he told the FBI about digital evidence allegedly linking computers in Trump Tower to Russia’s Alfa Bank. The FBI subsequently investigated the purported link but found ‘insufficient evidence’ to support it, prosecutors say.

Shortly after the indictment was announced, the law firm where he was a partner, Perkins Coie, said it had accepted Sussmann’s resignation. In a statement issued prior to the indictment, Sussmann’s lawyers insisted that their client was innocent and they suggested that politics were at work in the decision to charge their client.

‘Mr. Sussmann has committed no crime,’ defense attorneys Sean Berkowitz and Michael Bosworth said in the statement. ‘Any prosecution here would be baseless, unprecedented, and an unwarranted deviation from the apolitical and principled way in which the Department of Justice is supposed to do its work.’

Sussmann’s lawyers also contend that he never made such a statement, that the evidence in the case is weak and that there’s no sign the alleged falsehood affected the FBI’s work.”

Durham’s indictment is not only legally flimsy, based on a single alleged misreprentation made by Sussmann in 2016, it also appears to be politically motivated. One motivation was Donald Trump’s paranoia over the FBI’s investigation of links between the Trump campaign and Russian election interference and his attempts to thwart it, by whatever means available. That motivation is detailed in the Daily Beast article “William Barr Delivers Chilling Message to FBI for Trump,” by MSNBC contributor and former U.S. attorney Barbara McQuade on May 15, 2019. An even more devilishly cunning political motivation can be attributed to Trump henchman and political thug, former U.S. AG Bill Barr. As explained in the article “How Do You Solve a Problem Like John Durham?” published in Lawfare on December 4, 2020, Barr’s appointment of Trump acolyte John Durham to the high powered position of special prosecutor within the DOJ was always intended to monkeywrench the DOJ for its successor, in this case Merrick Garland. That Garland had the authority to override Durham’s indictment of Sussmann today and yet did not, a decision for which Garland is already taking media fire, can be construed as evidence that Barr’s plan has proven successful if even on a small scale.

The full text of the DOJ’s criminal indictment of Michael A. Sussmann can be viewed in your browser by clicking on the link below titled “Sussmann Indictment.” Other links allow the full text to be downloaded to your device and shared on Twitter and Facebook.

Full Text: Merrick Garland Seeks Emergency Injunction Over TX Abortion Ban

September 15, 2021

On September 14, 2021, the DOJ filed an emergency motion in federal court asking that enforcement of Texas’s ban on abortions after six weeks be temporarily or preliminarily enjoined. In its motion, the DOJ noted that “[t]he devastating effects warned of in the pre-enforcement litigation immediately became a reality for patients and providers in Texas.” The DOJ established the factual basis for its motion by describing a litany of harrowing experiences suffered by Texas women as a direct result of the anti-abortion law. Setting forth the dire state of affairs in Texas, the DOJ wrote: “Women are being forced to travel hundreds—and sometimes thousands—of miles to obtain an abortion under harrowing circumstances in the middle of a COVID surge. . . . One patient ‘got in her car at midnight in Texas so that she could drive through the night and make it to Oklahoma in the morning for her abortion appointment, and then she had to turn around the same day to travel back to Texas.’ Patients from Texas are traveling sometimes five to eight hours each way to get to a health center in Oklahoma, . . . and on average patients are traveling 650 miles each way to reach abortion clinics in the southwest . . . (detailing trips of 790 miles, 930 miles, 1000 miles each way). One minor, who was raped by a family member, traveled eight hours from Galveston to Oklahoma to get an abortion, . . . and other survivors of sexual assault have to bear the additional burden of taking time off work and arranging childcare because abortions are not available in Texas[.] . . . Another patient facing violence at the hands of her husband is ‘discreetly attempting to leave Texas without her husband finding out,’ and is ‘desperate’ and ‘selling personal items’ to scrape together the funds needed for an out-of-state abortion. . . . . Another ‘patient traveled six hours (one way) to get to Oklahoma and said she drove alone because she was worried’ that asking someone to ‘accompany her’ would subject that person to liability under S.B. 8. . . . In one day, one patient drove a 1000 mile round trip alone ‘because she didn’t have paid time off work and couldn’t afford’ to miss her shift.’ In addition to these extreme hardships and many others included in the DOJ motion, the DOJ reached the unavoidable conclusion that: “Not only has S.B. 8 imperiled the rights of Texas residents; it has had an extreme impact on the rights of women in other states, including in Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico. Since S.B. 8 took effect, clinics in Tulsa and Oklahoma City have ‘seen an overall staggering 646% increase of Texan patients’ as compared to the first six months of the year.”

The following article published in Axios on September 15, 2021, summarizes the legal and political significance of the motion.

Why it matters: The action marks an escalation by the Biden administration in its challenge on the constitutionality of the GOP-led state’s restrictive new law, after the DOJ filed a lawsuit last week following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, in a 5-4 vote, to allow the ban to remain in place.

  • The law that took effect on Sept. 1 following the ruling is the most restrictive abortion ban allowed to be enforced since the Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide.

What they’re saying: The DOJ argues in its filing, submitted to the U.S. District Court in Austin, Texas, that the law, known as Senate Bill 8, was passed “to prevent women from exercising their constitutional rights.”

  • “This relief is necessary to protect the constitutional rights of women in Texas and the sovereign interest of the United States,” the statement added.

The full text of the DOJ’s emergency motion can be viewed in your browser by clicking on the link below titled “U.S. v. Texas Emergency Motion.” Other links allow the full text to be downloaded to your device and shared on Twitter and Facebook. 

Full Text: “Freedom To Vote Act”

September 14, 2021

On September 14, 2021, Senators Klobuchar, Warnock, Merkley, Manchin and four other senators introduced the Freedom To Vote Act, a compromise to The For The People Act, which was already destined to die in the Senate at Mitch McConnell’s hand and which even Democratic Senator Joe Manchin had refused to support. With The For The People Act officially dead, how should we feel about the new compromise bill? At this point, perhaps surprisingly good. Two of the heaviest hitters on voting reform, Marc Elias and Michael Waldman, both came out publicly as strongly supporting the Freedom To Vote Act on September 14, 2021, the very day the bill was introduced in the Senate. This post summarizes the thoughts of both Elias and Waldman on the Freedom To Vote Act. Near the end of the post is a link to an article comparing The For The People Act and the Freedom To Vote Act. The full text of the bill may be read online by clicking on the link at the end of this post. The bill may also be downloaded and shared on Twitter and Facebook. (The full text of The For The People Act may be found on the previous post.)

Marc Elias is a nationally recognized attorney who is best known for bringing a multitude of successful lawsuits against states enacting voter suppression legislation. Formerly an attorney at the mega-firm of Perkins Coie, Elias has recently formed his own law firm, the Elias Law Group. Elias is also the founder of Democracy Docket, a news website focusing on voting rights and election litigation in the United States. Democracy Docket has been described as “a leading progressive platform dedicated to opinion, advocacy and information about voting rights, elections, redistricting and democracy.” The following text is from an article titled “My Thoughts on Manchin’s Compromise Bill,” published by Elias on the Democracy Docket website on September 14, 2021.

“When it comes to voting rights, being asked to compromise is typically a warning sign. There is no middle ground between the arsonist and the firefighter. Just as we don’t ask the media to compromise their right to publish news stories, we should not require citizens to compromise their rights as voters.

After considering the For the People Act this past summer, Senator Joe Manchin, along with other key Senate Democrats, used the August recess to draft a long-awaited revision of the landmark voting rights bill. 

The Freedom to Vote Act, introduced this morning, reveals a surprisingly good voting rights bill.  It reflects a sobriety and understanding of the challenges facing voters that is worthy of its lofty name. It is not just a reformulation of the prior For the People Act, but in many places, it is an improvement.

Much of the new bill is familiar to those concerned about voting rights in our country. The new bill establishes minimum requirements for how states conduct federal elections. It expands voter registration, requires a minimum number of days and hours for early voting and creates a nationwide right to vote by mail.

With respect to voting by mail specifically, the bill rolls back many of the Republicans’ latest disenfranchisement schemes. For example, the bill forbids states from requiring notarization or witnesses to vote by mail. It also requires states to count ballots cast by Election Day if they are received up to seven days after the election. It provides for a free postage system for returned ballots, requires states to notify voters whose ballots are rejected due to a signature omission or mismatch and creates an easy way for voters to cure those ballots.

What makes this new bill exceptional, however, is its attention to several small, but important details that have been raised in the last few months. For example, it requires states to count provisional ballots cast by eligible voters in the wrong precinct but in the correct county. It also imposes a 30-minute limit on wait times for in-person voting. And, in a nod to a significant court victory in Florida, it requires polling locations on college campuses.

To prevent voter intimidation, it prevents frivolous challenges to voter qualifications. This provision alone would undo the worst provision of the Georgia suppression law. It bans the pernicious practice of voter caging as a technique to illegally purge voters. It restricts who can serve as poll observers and how close they can be to a voter (no closer than eight feet). It prevents states from outlawing the provision of food and water to voters waiting in line to vote.

The new bill would also provide increased protections for election workers. It would give them new protections from harassment and intimidation, while also making it harder to fire them for improper reasons.

To prevent excessive partisanship from dominating the redistricting process, the new bill imposes new standards prohibiting partisan gerrymandering. It also ensures that Republican efforts to rush new gerrymandered maps into place ahead of its passage will fail. 

But, the crown jewels of the Freedom to Vote Act are contained in the judicial review provisions. The bill not only creates a specific “right to vote” in federal elections but guarantees it. Under the new bill, states would be prohibited from enacting laws or policies that are “retrogressive” — i.e., that make voting harder. In addition, the bill would subject significant state restrictions on the right to vote to heightened judicial scrutiny. In another small but important improvement, the new bill allows for virtually all voting rights cases to be filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which has the promise of creating a national, uniform pro-democracy jurisprudence.

Put simply, if the new bill is enacted, more citizens will be able to register to vote, vote in person and by mail and have their votes counted. And, those of us fighting suppression laws in court will have the tools necessary to achieve fast, consistent victories for voters when states fail to follow the law.

This, of course, does not mean the new bill is perfect. 

While it gives election officials more protections, it does not tackle the underlying problems facing our counting and certification process. That will require a much more extensive rewrite of how states conduct post-election tabulation and certification. There are provisions, like the new 30-minute standard for in-person voting wait times, that lack sufficient enforcement mechanisms. And, there are additional provisions Congress could add that would prevent the undermining of our elections, such as heightened legal pleading standards for claiming fraud and additional safeguards to the right to vote.

None of these omissions or revisions to the bill are deal breakers. All can be fixed as the legislative process proceeds.

One of the biggest objections to the framework Senator Manchin announced in June related to a national voter identification requirement. The new bill permits states to decide whether to require voter identification, but broadens the list of acceptable IDs for states that choose to require them. Under the new bill, states must allow utility bills and leases as well as student IDs and virtually any identification issued by a governmental entity to serve as an acceptable ID. In effect, the bill would require states with stricter ID laws to accept these documents as well, thereby reducing the disenfranchisement caused by strict ID laws in many red states. 

Before the summer recess, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer promised that “last month’s vote [on the For the People Act] represented the starting gun—not the finish line— in our fight to protect our democracy.” While we have not yet reached the finish line, this week he, and Senate Democrats, took a very big step towards making good on that promise.”

Michael Waldman is an attorney and political advisor. He is the president of the Brennan Center For Justice at the NYU School of Law, which he has lead since 2005. The Brennan Center describes itself as “a nonpartisan law and policy institute working to reform, revitalize, and defend our country’s systems of democracy and justice. We work to hold our political institutions and laws accountable to the twin American ideals of democracy and equal justice for all. The Center’s work ranges from voting rights to campaign finance reform, from ending mass incarceration to preserving Constitutional protection in the fight against terrorism. Part think-tank, part advocacy group, part cutting-edge communications hub, we start with rigorous research. We craft innovative policies. And we fight for them — in Congress and the states, the courts, and in the court of public opinion.”

In an article titled “Senators Introduce Freedom to Vote Act; Brennan Center President Michael Waldman Reacts,” published by Waldman on the Brennan Center website on September 14, 2021, Waldman offered the following brief but overall positive comments:

“The Freedom to Vote Act is a very strong bill. It gives powerful new momentum to the fight to protect democracy. It should be passed, and soon. 

The Freedom to Vote Act would protect millions of Americans’ access to the ballot box, now under siege by state laws meant to disenfranchise voters and subvert our elections. It would defend civil rights and advance racial justice. It would ban gerrymandering, which entrenches political party control and denies communities of color fair representation. It would curb the role of big money in our democracy through stronger rules on campaign finance and voluntary public financing of elections with an innovative new funding mechanism.

There is now no substitute for action. As redistricting unfolds across the country, time is of the essence. Lawmakers from both parties should embrace this new legislation, and will do so if they are serious about protecting democracy.”

For a comparison of The For The People Act with the Freedom to Vote Act, this article “How Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s new voting rights bill differs from her old voting rights bill,” published in the MinnPost on September, 17, 2021, is helpful. As noted in the article, “One thing the [Freedom To Vote Act] does not incorporate is the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would restore the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Civil rights activists had urged that the John Lewis act be passed in tandem with the For the People Act, but as of now it appears that it won’t be paired with the Freedom to Vote Act.”

The full text of the Freedom To Vote Act can be viewed in your browser by clicking on the link below titled “Freedom To Vote Act (Full Text).” Other links allow the full text to be downloaded to your device and shared on Twitter and Facebook. 

Full Text: H.R. 1 “The For The People Act”

September 14, 2021

Until today, The For The People Act, passed by the House on March 3, 2021, as H.B. 1, was to be the ultimate voting reform bill and a cornerstone of the Biden Administration’s legislative agenda. It faced enormous obstacles to passage, however. The first obstacle was Democratic Senator Joe Manchin who opposed the bill. Joe Manchin also played a role in the second obstacle, the unbreakable filibuster that the GOP had promised to mount against H.B. 1. Without Joe Manchin’s vote to override the filibuster, a vote which he vowed not to give, the bill was destined to become one more major Democratic bill to die in the Senate under the hand of one of the greatest foes of democracy in American history, Senator Mitch McConnell.

That changed today when Senator Amy Klobuchar introduced a “compromise” voting rights bill authored by Joe Manchin: the “Freedom To Vote Act.” That bill will be discussed in the following post. The purpose of this post is to provide the full text of the apparently now soon to be forgotten For The People Act for comparison with the Freedom To Vote Act.

The full text can be viewed in your browser by clicking on the link below titled “HR 1 For The People Act (Full Text).” Other links allow the full text to be downloaded to your device and shared on Twitter and Facebook. For an in depth analysis of The For The People Act, there are few better resources than the “Annotated Guide to the For the People Act of 2021” prepared by the Brennan Center For Justice at the NYU Law School and posted on their website at this link: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/policy-solutions/annotated-guide-people-act-2021

Full Text: Merrick Garland Sues TX Over Abortion Ban

September 9, 2021

Accusing Texas of acting in “open defiance of the Constitution,” the DOJ filed suit against Texas over its six-week abortion ban.

The DOJ’s complaint was fiercely direct, opening with the statement: “It is settled constitutional law that ‘a State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability.’” Thus, concluded the DOJ, “Texas enacted S.B. 8 in open defiance of the Constitution.”

The DOJ further asserted that “Because S.B. 8 clearly violates the Constitution, Texas adopted an unprecedented scheme ‘to insulate the State from responsibility,’ . . . by making the statute harder to challenge in court.” The DOJ found the political motive behind the Texas anti-abortion statute transparent, noting that Texas’s goal is “to make it too risky for an abortion clinic to operate in the State, thereby preventing women throughout Texas from exercising their constitutional rights, while simultaneously thwarting judicial review.”

The DOJ made clear its determination to prevent Texas from evading its Constitutional obligations, writing forcefully: “The United States has the authority and responsibility to ensure that Texas cannot evade its obligations under the Constitution and deprive individuals of their constitutional rights by adopting a statutory scheme designed specifically to evade traditional mechanisms of federal judicial review. The federal government therefore brings this suit directly against the State of Texas to obtain a declaration that S.B. 8 is invalid, to enjoin its enforcement, and to protect the rights that Texas has violated.”

Putting an even finer point on Texas’s sneak attack on the constitutional rights of its citizens, the DOJ wrote: “In a transparent effort to evade constitutional scrutiny, Texas has outsourced the authority to enforce S.B. 8 to ordinary citizens.”

In its prayer for relief the DOJ seeks “a declaratory judgment stating that S.B. 8 is invalid, null, and void” as well as “a preliminary and permanent injunction against the State of Texas—including all of its officers, employees, and agents, including private parties who would bring suit under S.B. 8—prohibiting any and all enforcement of S.B 8.”

To read the DOJ complaint, open the PDF file for “U.S. v. Texas” in your browser at the link below, or click the “Download” button to download the file to your device.

Full Text: Federal Judge Blocks DeSantis’s “Anti-Riot” Law

September 9, 2021

In a powerful 90-page order citing the racist history behind anti-riot laws and quoting Shakespeare, Chief Federal District Judge Mark Walker eviscerated Florida’s “Anti-Riot” law enacted to quell the wave of protests following the murder of George Floyd by police officers.

Quoting the AP article appearing on the MSN website on September 9, 2021:

“Florida’s new “anti-riot” law championed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis as a way to quell violent protests is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

The 90-page decision by U.S. District Judge Mark Walker in Tallahassee found the recently-enacted law “vague and overbroad” and amounted to an assault on First Amendment rights of free speech and assembly as well as the Constitution’s due process protections.

People engaged in peaceful protest or innocently in the same area when a demonstration turned violent could face criminal charges and stiff penalties under the law, the judge said.

A key issue is defining what the word “riot” means in the statute. Walker noted that past Florida laws sought to prevent demonstrations that could threaten segregationist Jim Crow-era practices.

“If this court does not enjoin the statute’s enforcement, the lawless actions of a few rogue individuals could effectively criminalize the protected speech of hundreds, if not thousands, of law-abiding Floridians,” Walker wrote.

“It unfortunately takes only a handful of bad actors to transform a peaceful protest into a violent public disturbance,” the judge added.”

Quoting the final paragraph of the court order issued by Chief United States District Judge Mark E. Walker:

“Though what’s past is prologue, this Court need not give it any power beyond providing context for the case now before it. A critical part of that context, which has not yet been discussed, is that following Ms. Jakes’s, Ms. Patterson’s, and the 1961 Freedom Riders’ arrests under Florida’s anti-riot laws, the rule of law ultimately prevailed. Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964); Browder v. Gayle, 142 F. Supp. 707 (M.D. Al. 1956), aff’d 352 U.S. 903 (1956); see also Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Harper v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Verdict, Minnesota v. Chauvin, No. 27-CR-20-12646 (Minn. Dist. Ct. April 20, 2021). And so too, with this Court, the rule of law prevails.”

Open the PDF file for “The Dream Defenders v. DeSantis” in your browser at the link below or click the “Download” button to download the file to your device.

Full Text: Supreme Court Lets Stand TX Abortion Ban

(Blistering Dissents by Kagan & Sotomayor)

September 2, 2021

Quoting Axios on September 2, 2021: “The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to leave the Texas ban on most abortions in place, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the three liberal judges in the dissent.

Why it matters: The Texas law is the most restrictive abortion ban allowed to be enforced since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision enshrined abortion as a constitutional right. The Supreme Court decision will likely prompt other states to pass similar laws, reproductive rights groups say.

Catch up quick: The Texas law bans all abortions, including in cases of rape and incest, after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, which is usually around six weeks —before many people know they are pregnant.

  • It also allows individuals to sue anyone suspected of helping a woman obtain an abortion — and awards at least $10,000 to people who do so successfully.
  • The law is difficult to challenge partly because it’s unclear who can be sued since it deputizes private citizens to enforce it.

What they’re saying:

Roberts in his dissent calls the “statutory scheme” of the law “not only unusual, but unprecedented.”

  • “The legislature has imposed a prohibition on abortions after roughly six weeks, and then essentially delegated enforcement of that prohibition to the populace at large. The desired consequence appears to be to insulate the State from responsibility for implementing and enforcing the regulatory regime,” he continues in a dissent joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.
  • “I would grant preliminary relief to preserve the status quo ante—before the law went into effect—so that the courts may consider whether a state can avoid responsibility for its laws in such a manner,” he adds.
  • “[T]he consequences of approving the state action, both in this particular case and as a model for action in other areas, counsel at least preliminary judicial consideration before the program devised by the State takes effect.”
  • “We are also asked to do so without ordinary merits briefing and without oral argument. These questions are particularly difficult.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her dissent calls the majority’s decision “stunning.”

  • “Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of Justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand,” she continues in a dissent joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan.
  • “Because the Court’s failure to act rewards tactics designed to avoid judicial review and inflicts significant harm on the applicants and on women seeking abortions in Texas, I dissent,” she writes, adding the law “is clearly unconstitutional under existing precedents.”
  • “In effect, the Texas Legislature has deputized the State’s citizens as bounty hunters, offering them cash prizes for civilly prosecuting their neighbors’ medical procedures.”
  • “Taken together, the Act is a breathtaking act of defiance—of the Constitution, of this Court’s precedents, and of the rights of women seeking abortions throughout Texas.”
  • “Today, the Court finally tells the Nation that it declined to act because, in short, the State’s gambit worked. … It cannot be the case that a State can evade federal judicial scrutiny by outsourcing the enforcement of unconstitutional laws to its citizenry.”
  • Of note: Justices Kagan and Breyer also wrote separate opinions.

The other side: In a brief, unsigned order, the majority — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito Jr., Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — say that while they are denying the application for injunctive relief, the decision is not an indication of whether they believe the law is constitutional or not.

  • “The applicants now before us have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue. But their application also presents complex and novel antecedent procedural questions on which they have not carried their burden,” the opinion reads.
  • “In reaching this conclusion, we stress that we do not purport to resolve definitively any jurisdictional or substantive claim in the applicants’ lawsuit,” it adds.
  • “In particular, this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts.””

Read the order “Whole Women’s Health v. Austin Reeve (Supreme Court) (9.1.21)” in the scrollable reader below or click on the link below that for a larger view. Click the “Download” button to download the file to your device.

Full Text: Judge Parker Orders Sanctions Against Eight Big Lie Lawyers

August 25, 2021

In a scathing 110-page order Federal Judge Linda V. Parker orders sanctions, including suspension & disbarment, against Sidney Powell & eight other lawyers for using the court system to advance Trump’s Big Lie.

Open the PDF file for “Judge Parker Sanctions Attorneys” in your browser at the link below or click the “Download” button to download the file to your device.

Afghanistan – An Analysis

August 17, 2021

A superb analysis of the twenty-year war in Afghanistan written by Oregon Representative Marty Wilde based on his deployment in Afghanistan as a member of the International Security Assistance Force.

Access Representative Wilde’s essay “Afghanistan – An Analysis” by clicking on the link “Afghanistan – An Analysis” below. Additionally, clicking on the “Download” button will download the document as a pdf file to your device. You can also share this document on social media using the share buttons below.

Full Text: Federal Judge Scathingly Rebukes A.G. Barr & Demands Unredacted Mueller Report

March 5, 2020

Quoting an article posted by ABC News on March 5, 2020:

“U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton issued an extraordinary rebuke of Attorney General William Barr Thursday in an order to the Department of Justice demanding he be able to review an unredacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Walton, who was appointed to the D.C. District Court by former President George W. Bush, admonished Barr’s handling of Mueller’s report and questioned whether his framing of it in his so-called ‘principal conclusions’ letter prior to the full report’s release was ‘calculated’ to help President Donald Trump politically.

‘The inconsistencies between Attorney General Barr’s statements, made at a time when the public did not have access to the redacted version of the Mueller Report to assess the veracity of his statements, and portions of the redacted version of the Mueller Report that conflict with those statements cause the Court to seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller Report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller Report to the contrary,’ Walton wrote.

He added: ‘The speed by which Attorney General Barr released to the public the summary of Special Counsel Mueller’s principal conclusions, coupled with the fact that Attorney General Barr failed to provide a thorough representation of the findings set forth in the Mueller Report, causes the Court to question whether Attorney General Barr’s intent was to create a one-sided narrative about the Mueller Report—a narrative that is clearly in some respects substantively at odds with the redacted version of the Mueller Report.'”

Open the PDF file for “Electronic Privacy Information Center v. DOJ (Memorandum Order)” in your browser at the link below or click the “Download” button to download the file to your device.