Introduction -- Three case studies in political control -- Principal agent theory, career prospects, and United States Attorneys -- Describing the data and issue areas -- Political responsiveness and case filings -- Political responsiveness and sentence length -- Political responsiveness and career prospects -- Concluding thoughts and implications.
The Model Rules of Professional Conduct provides an up-to-date resource for information on legal ethics. Federal, state and local courts in all jurisdictions look to the Rules for guidance in solving lawyer malpractice cases, disciplinary actions, disqualification issues, sanctions questions and much more. In this volume, black-letter Rules of Professional Conduct are followed by numbered Comments that explain each Rule's purpose and provide suggestions for its practical application. The Rules will help you identify proper conduct in a variety of given situations, review those instances where discretionary action is possible, and define the nature of the relationship between you and your clients, colleagues and the courts.
"In February 2016, while testifying in a House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, a Barack Obama appointee, promised that her department would act with independence in investigating Hillary Clinton's usage of a personal email server during her tenure as Secretary of State. During that hearing, Congressman John Carter (R-TX) asked Lynch: If the FBI makes the case that Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information and put America's security at risk, will you prosecute the case? . . .[P]lease look the American people in the eye and tell us what your position is as you are the chief prosecutor of the United States. In response to this questioning, Lynch asserted that: [The matter] is being handled by . . . independent attorneys in the Department of Justice. They follow the evidence, they look at the law and they'll make a recommendation to me when the time is appropriate. . .This will be conducted as every other case. We will review all the facts and all the evidence and come to an independent conclusion as how to best handle it. And I am also aware of no efforts to undermine our review or investigation into this matter at all (Goldman 2016). Despite strong claims of prosecutorial independence, many Republicans complained that a Department of Justice run by Obama appointees could not impartially pass legal judgment on the Hillary Clintonemails matter. A June 27, 2016 meeting between Lynch and former U.S. President Bill Clinton would not help matters. The two privately talked for approximately 20 minutes on a plane sitting on the Phoenix Sky Harbor airport tarmac in a meeting described as unplanned and "primarily social." Despite the meeting's claimed innocuous content, it "caused a cascading political storm" for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and "provided fodder for Republicans who have accused the Justice Department of bias in its inquiry into Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server at the State Department" (Chozick 2016). Even Democrats expressed concerns about the meeting Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) remarked that "I do think that this meeting sends the wrong signal . . . I think she should have steered clear, even of a brief, casual social meeting with the former president"--
A gruesome suicide, a likely murder, a tragic plane crash, wrongful imprisonment, and gripping courtroom scenes draw readers into this compelling story giving them a frightening perspective on justice and who should be accountable when evidence is withheld. This is the true story of the strong-arm, illegal, and unethical tactics used by headline-grabbing federal prosecutors in their narcissistic pursuit of power. Its scope reaches from the US Department of Justice to the US Senate to the White House and is a scathing attack on prosecutors, judges, and all those who turned a blind eye to egregious injustices in the aftermath of the Enron collapse. The ramifications continue today as this corrupt cabal of former prosecutors now populates powerful political positions.
In Defender in Chief, celebrated constitutional scholar John Yoo makes a provocative case against Donald Trump's alleged disruption of constitutional rules and norms. Donald Trump isn't shredding the Constitution—he's its greatest defender. Ask any liberal—and many moderate conservatives—and they'll tell you that Donald Trump is a threat to the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution. Mainstream media outlets have reported fresh examples of alleged executive overreach or authoritarian White House decisions nearly every day of his presidency. In the 2020 primaries, the candidates have rushed to accuse Trump of destroying our democracy and jeopardizing our nation's very existence. Yoo argues that this charge has things exactly backwards. Far from considering Trump an inherent threat to our nation's founding principles, Yoo convincingly argues that Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton would have seen Trump as returning to their vision of presidential power, even at his most controversial. It is instead liberal opponents who would overthrow existing constitutional understanding in order to unseat Trump, but in getting their man would inflict permanent damage on the office of the presidency, the most important office in our constitutional system and the world. This provocative and engaging work is a compelling defense of an embattled president's ideas and actions.
