Congressman and former assistant United States Attorney Artur Davis (D-Va.) asks FBI Director Robert Mueller about the standard that the FBI will use as a threshold for opening investigations. Since the activities undertaken by the FBI are similar to those used by police in an initial investigation, Davis asked if the standard needed to undertake an FBI investigation will be lower than the standard set out by police in the 1968 Supreme Court decision in Terry v. Ohio. Mueller initially resists the question, but eventually says the standard is lower. (0:51)

 

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Congressman Al Green (D-Tex.) discusses the two aspect of diversity, namely the legal and moral components. Green says that affirmative action is a key to the moral component for diversity initiatives.(1:09)

 

 Standard Podcast [1:09m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

The Senate Judiciary Committee convened today to discuss low-income legal assistance. The hearing on “Closing the Justice Gap: Providing Civil Legal Assistance to Low-Income Americans,” was heard by one senator and had two witnesses testifying. Although it is law in this country that legal assistance can be provided to all, no matter income status, there is a growing concern that proper legal assistance to those who need it is not being provided. (more…)

Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg announced a dissent from a decision made by the Court to allow a Virginia execution to go through. The VA method of execution is similar to Kentucky lethal injection procedure at issue before the Court this term (and of which the Court eventually approved). The Supreme Court had issued an order stopping the execution last fall while it considered the pending case, and today it lifted that order. That execution is still under consideration by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the defendant can go to that court and ask them to stay the execution while it’s being considered, but Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg would have preferred to leave the Supreme Court’s order in place instead.

US v. Rodriquez: Rodriquez was convicted of felony possession of a firearm. Under federal law, he was eligible for a higher sentence if he had been previously convicted of a felony with a 10-year maximum sentence. He had previously been convicted of a drug crime in Washington that would normally only carry a 5-year sentence, but because it was his third conviction that maximum was extended to 10 years. (He was sentenced to 48 months.) The question for the Court was whether they should count the 5-year normal maximum or the 10-year recidivist maximum. The Supreme Court, 6-3 (Alito writing the main opinion), said the 10-year maximum is the one that counts. Souter, Stevens, and Ginsburg dissented.

Kentucky v. Davis: Kentucky says you don’t have to pay income tax on interest from Kentucky state-issued bonds, but you do have to pay such taxes on bonds from other states. Taxpayers claimed discrimination against interstate commerce, in violation of the “dormant Commerce Clause.” 7-2, Supreme Court said the tax was fine, since the tax was not a form of economic protectionism.

US v. Williams: Williams child pornography. He gave it to some other people. He was charged and convicted of possession of child pornography, but he was also charged and convicted of a relatively recent law that criminalized pandering (either offering or asking for) of something you think is child pornography. Under this law, you can be convicted for a separate crime if the material in question actually is child pornography (as it was in Williams’s case), or if it’s obscene (basically something really graphic). Williams argued his offering of the child pornography was free speech, but the Supreme Court, 7-2 (with a Scalia majority (he’s
usually for strong First Amendment rights) and Souter, Ginsburg dissent), said the law was ok, so Williams’s conviction is upheld.

US v. Ressam: Ressam lied to customs officers while attempting to enter the US by ferry in Washington state. A search of his car found explosives that he planned to use to blow up LAX. He was charged under a law that made it a crime to lie to customs while “carr[ying] an explosive during the commission of” that felony.” Even though the explosives weren’t related to his lie, the Supreme Court 8-1 said it was OK to charge him under that law.

John Elwood, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, testifying at a hearing of the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights Subcommittee on “Secret Law and the Threat to Democratic and Accountable Government,” says that legal justifications for implemented policies are available to Congress, since operative policy is “law.” However, he says there is a confidentiality interest in the legal opinions written by the OLC while they are advising among policy choices. (0:54)

 

 Standard Podcast [0:54m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Intro by Karen Finney

Howard Dean, DNC Chairman
Joe Sandler, DNC General Counsel

FEC complaint to be filed tomorrow

Dean:
Tomorrow DNC will be filing complaint with FEC asking for investigation into McCain campaign. He cannot unilaterally withdraw from spending commitment.

He can’t get out of matching funds agreement after using promise as collateral on loan. He has “material gain” from his fund.

When Dean got out of the program, he had an FEC vote to get out, and also he spent money to get on ballots, while McCain has gotten free ballot access as part of program.

Joe Sandler:
In letter this week, FEC commissioner said that McCain can’t back out after he’s written a letter to FEC saying he wanted to be in the program, and the FEC has taken a vote on McCain’s eligibility. That was not the case with Dean and with Kerry, who pulled out before being certified by the FEC as being eligible. McCain is in the same situation as Gephardt was in 2003, and then the FEC said he couldn’t get out without FEC consent.

And even if the FEC had a quorum and could vote, McCain can’t get out after having used his participation in the program as collateral for a loan.

So McCain still subject to limitations, including spending limit. Based on how much spending he reported as of end of January, he has likely already violated, or is about to violate, that spending limit.

Dean:
So three violations: 1. Material benefit in free ballot access. 2. Material benefit in using as loan collateral. 3. (likely) spending limit violation.
McCain is not a reformer; he passes changes to benefit himself.

Question:
What kind of sanctions are you looking for? How can the commission act without a quorum?

Sandler:
They can begin to process the complaint without quorum. We hope there are no sanctions imposed, because we hope McCain will comply with the law. If he doesn’t, potentially civil and criminal penalties.

Question:
Have you approached watchdog groups to ask them to join in complaint?

Dean:
Don’t think so.

Sandler:
Those groups are non-partisan, so they wouldn’t join a party in a complaint. They might call on McCain to follow the rules, though.

Question:
Dean’s opinion on 527 groups active on Clinton and Obama sides?

Dean:
I haven’t followed that.

Question:
Any chance of reaching out to RNC to together speak out against 527s?

Dean:
“I’m going to worry about the 527s at another time.”
On McCain, “this is a major violation.” This is “so Washington.”

Question:
Said you want him to obey the law, but how can he go back in time and never apply for federal funding? So he can’t spend another penny until he gets the nomination in September?

Dean:
I don’t understand how someone with McCain’s reputation can do this kind of thing. He says one thing and does another. “We want John McCain to obey the law with his own name on it.”