Showing posts with label Senate Judiciary Committee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senate Judiciary Committee. Show all posts

Monday, June 18, 2018

Senate Judiciary Committee chair Grassley suggests judiciary needs an inspector general

Chuck Grassley
Senate Judiciary Committee chair Grassley suggests judiciary needs an inspector general

ABA Journal Daily News
By Debra Cassens Weiss
June 15, 2018


Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley said Wednesday that it may be time for an independent inspector general to handle misconduct complaints against the federal judiciary.

Speaking at a committee hearing, Grassley said nearly every federal agency has a watchdog that can guard against misconduct, report the National Law Journal and CNN. "It’s time for the federal judiciary to catch up," he said. Bloomberg Big Law Business and the Huffington Post also have coverage of the hearing.

Judicial officials have taken the position that an inspector general isn’t needed, and could violate separation of powers principles, according to CNN.

Grassley criticized a recent report by a federal court working group that said the judiciary should revise codes of conduct to promote appropriate behavior. The report also said judges have a special responsibility to promote appropriate behavior and report misconduct by others, including other judges.

Grassley said in a June 5 statement that the report "kicks the can down the road" and leaves specific policy changes to other committees.

At Wednesday’s hearing, James Duff, the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, said the judiciary has a process that works when it’s used. The problem, he said, it that some misconduct might go unreported because employees find the process to be too complicated, they don’t know about it or they fear retaliation.

The working group was formed at the request of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. after 15 women accused Judge Alex Kozinski of misconduct in interviews with the Washington Post. Kozinski, a judge on the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, announced his immediate retirement in December. Read more

Thursday, June 15, 2017

Did Comey violate privilege by leaking memo? Trump's lawyer will reportedly file complaint

ABA Journal online
Did Comey violate privilege by leaking memo? Trump's lawyer will reportedly file complaint
American Bar Association (ABA)
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Posted Jun 09, 2017 10:30 am CDT


President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer is targeting fired FBI director James Comey over his revelation on Thursday that he gave a memo summarizing a meeting with the president to a friend so he could give it the press.

Trump lawyer Marc Kasowitz will reportedly file a complaint over the leaked memo, report NBC News, CNN, Fox News and Reuters. The stories are based on an anonymous source. According to Reuters, Kasowitz will file a complaint with the Justice Department’s inspector general and will make a "submission" to the Senate Judiciary and Senate Intelligence committees.

But the memo leak does not appear to be illegal or to violate executive privilege, according to University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck in a Washington Post article. Other experts interviewed by the Los Angeles Times and ABC News agree with that view.

CNN also points out that the Justice Department has limited jurisdiction over former employees. If the department finds wrongdoing it can make a note in Comey’s file to be used if he seeks employment there in the future.

Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee that he gave a memo summarizing one of his meetings with Trump to a law professor and asked him to give it to a reporter. Comey said he wanted the memo released "because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel."

Comey leaked the memo after his May 9 firing and after a Trump tweet three days later that read, "James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!" Comey said the tweet led him to believe he needed to get the information out in the "public square."

A story later appeared in the New York Times, based on a Comey memo, about Trump allegedly telling Comey he hoped he could let go of the investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s contacts with Russian officials.

Kasowitz said in a statement released after Comey’s testimony that Comey had "unilaterally and surreptitiously made unauthorized disclosures to the press of privileged communications with the president." Kasowitz said the New York Times had been quoting from Comey’s memos while he was still FBI director. He also said that Comey admitted giving to his friends the memos of conversations, one of which was classified.

But Comey said he gave one memo to the law professor—apparently the one about the Flynn conversation—and he was careful not to put any classified information into the memo, Slate points out.

"I remember thinking, ‘This is a very disturbing development,’" Comey had testified. "If I write it in such a way that I don’t include anything that would trigger classification, that would make it easier for us to discuss within the FBI and the government and to hold on to it in a way that makes it accessible to us."

In his Washington Post piece, Vladeck says Comey’s memo isn’t covered by executive privilege and, even if it were, disclosing it without authorization isn’t illegal.

Executive privilege serves to protect against compelled disclosure of confidential executive branch communications, and it is meant to shield against a court order or congressional subpoena, he says.

The privilege "is not a sword, though," Vladeck writes. "So where a current or former government employee wants to cooperate and turn over the requested information, the privilege itself won’t—and can’t—stop him or her."

And voluntary disclosure is not illegal, Vladeck says. Federal law bars unauthorized disclosure relating to national defense or that has pecuniary value to the United States, and neither applies when information in the memo is unclassified.

Vladeck adds that Trump "has almost certainly waived any potential privilege claim" by acknowledging the existence and substance of the discussions. And if the privilege weren’t waived, any interest in confidentiality can be outweighed by the value of disclosure when it has some bearing on criminal cases.

And that means Trump likely could not successfully claim executive privilege to avoid releasing tapes of the conversations, if he has any, Vladeck says.

Though Comey’s disclosure of unclassified information isn’t illegal, that doesn’t mean it is appropriate, Vladeck says.

"Not for the first time, it appears that Comey took it upon himself to breach important norms governing the conduct of senior law enforcement officials—an offense that, perhaps ironically, would have unquestionably justified his termination, if he hadn’t already been fired before doing it," he writes. Read more

Missing word added to third paragraph at 12:20 p.m.

Senate Judiciary Committee to probe circumstances of Comey's firing from the FBI

James Comey
Senate Judiciary Committee to probe circumstances of Comey's firing from the FBI 
American Bar Association
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Posted Jun 14, 2017 01:35 pm CDT


The Senate Judiciary Committee will investigate the circumstances of President Donald Trump’s firing of FBI director James Comey as it probes attempts to influence the agency’s investigations over the course of two administrations.

Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, revealed the committee’s plans in a letter (PDF) released Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal (sub. req.) reports.

The probe "could examine the thorny question of whether Mr. Trump improperly interfered in an ongoing investigation" by firing Comey, according to the newspaper. The Hill and the Washington Examiner also have stories.

Grassley’s letter was in response to a request by U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, also the top Democrat on the committee. Feinstein has asked the committee to investigate Trump’s interactions with Comey. In a television interview, she also said the committee should investigate actions by former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch in the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.

Grassley said Comey’s firing and Lynch’s actions should both be investigated.

"The Judiciary Committee has an obligation to fully investigate any alleged improper partisan interference in law enforcement investigations," Grassley wrote. "It is my view that fully investigating the facts, circumstances, and rationale for Mr. Comey’s removal will provide us the opportunity to do that on a cooperative, bipartisan basis."

Comey had said in testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee last Thursday that Lynch directed him to refer to the agency’s probe of Clinton’s server as "a matter" rather than an investigation. Grassley also cited congressional testimony indicating that Comey appeared to question the whether leadership of the Justice Department had, in Grassley’s words, "independence from political motivations."

In a tweet on Tuesday, Trump said Lynch gave Hillary Clinton "a free pass" and "made law enforcement decisions for political purposes."

Grassley said investigations of Comey’s firing and Lynch’s actions should be intertwined because Trump had initially cited Comey’s handling of the Clinton probe as one reason for his firing. Read online