Attorney General William Barr will deliver the Barbara K Olson Lecture at the Federalist Society’s 2019 National Lawyers Convention.
Federal judge compels Secretary of Commerce Ross to be deposed in suit against citizenship question
While Ross has testified about the question before Congress and wanted to avoid a deposition in this lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman wrote in an order Friday “the question is not a close one: Secretary Ross must sit for a deposition because, among other things, his intent and credibility are directly at issue in these cases.”
.. government officials should only be called to testify in exceptional circumstances, since they have “greater duties and time constraints than other witnesses.” Thus, the 2nd Circuit ruled, such officials should only be deposed if they have first-hand knowledge or if other sources cannot provide the same information.
Furman said this case meets both of those standards. The heart of the issue is Ross’s own intention in adding the question to the census.
To avoid imposing too much of a burden on Ross, Furman limited the deposition to four hours.
.. evidence found by the attorneys general that suggests Ross took a strong interest in getting the citizenship question added himself, repeatedly raising the topic despite objections from experts within the Census Bureau.
The Answer to Whether Trump Obstructed Justice Now Seems Clear
Most white-collar prosecutions turn on the issue of criminal intent. These cases involve behavior that would, in ordinary circumstances, be totally legal—if not for the intent of the defendant.
.. It’s only criminal to sell stock if you had improper knowledge of the status of the company.
.. The President clearly had the right to fire Comey, but he did not have the right to do so with improper intent.
.. McGahn’s threat to resign shows that he saw these purported reasons as pretexts.
- .. The golf-dues matter was obviously trivial
- .. the law firm’s representation of Kushner, which did not involve Mueller at all, could only have biased the special counsel in favor of the President’s family
- .. and Trump’s willingness to interview Mueller for the F.B.I. position showed how much the President trusted Mueller, not that he believed the former F.B.I. director harbored any animosity toward him.
.. McGahn recognized the key fact—that Trump wanted to fire Mueller for the wrong reasons. Trump wanted to fire Mueller because his investigation was threatening to him.
.. Trump and his advisers have offered various tortured rationalizations for the firing of Comey—initially, for example, on the ground that Comey had been unfair to Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign. Trump himself came clean in an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt and in a meeting with Russia’s foreign minister.
In both, Trump acknowledged that he fired Comey to stall or stop the Russia investigation—that is, the investigation of Trump himself and his campaign.
The latest Russia revelations lay the groundwork for a conspiracy case
Collusion is usually defined as a secret agreement to do something improper. In the criminal-law world, we call that conspiracy. If unlawful collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian nationals did take place, criminal conspiracy would be one of the most likely charges.
A conspiracy is a partnership in crime. The federal conspiracy statute prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States, which includes conspiracies to impede the lawful functions of the federal government — such as administering a presidential election.
.. The meeting helps establish a few critical facts. The first is simply that contacts between Russians and campaign officials did take place. If you are seeking to prove a criminal partnership, evidence that the alleged partners had private meetings establishes the opportunity to reach an agreement.
.. The crucial new detail about this meeting is that campaign members now admit it took place after they were told that Veselnitskaya was offering compromising information about Clinton.
.. This fact is significant regardless of what happened at the meeting. Proving a defendant’s state of mind is key in any criminal case. This meeting provides critical evidence about the state of mind of Trump representatives: They were willing to hear what a Russian individual had to offer about their opponent.
.. The first line of defense against a conspiracy allegation typically would be: “That’s ridiculous — I’d never agree to meet with someone from Russia under those circumstances.” That line of defense appears to be gone.
.. Lies or conflicting explanations can be important circumstantial evidence of criminal intent. They may indicate that the truth is something more nefarious that someone does not want to be discovered.
.. We know now that Trump campaign officials were, at the very least, willing to entertain the idea of accepting help from Russian nationals in a U.S. presidential election.