PDF The Investigators (Annotated)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online The Investigators (Annotated) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with The Investigators (Annotated) book. Happy reading The Investigators (Annotated) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF The Investigators (Annotated) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF The Investigators (Annotated) Pocket Guide.

Douds, U. Sweezy v. New Hampshire, U. United States, F. It would be hard to conceive of there being too much talk about the practical concerns. For contrasting views of the reach of this statement, compare United States v.

Collaborative Annotation in the History Classroom

Rumely, U. Attorney General of New Hampshire, U. In times of political passion, dishonest or vindicative motives are readily attributable to legislative conduct and as readily believed. Courts are not the place for such controversies.


  • Annotated Leading Cases of International Criminal Tribunals - volume 49?
  • Carnival Games: $10,000,000,000 Hoodwink Racket: Organized Crime on American Midways.
  • An annotated guide to the redacted Mueller report - POLITICO!
  • Proceedings of the Fifth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2018?
  • Upcoming...?
  • EL FIN DEL MUNDO (Spanish Edition);
  • We've detected unusual activity from your computer network.

Brandhove, U. For a statement of the traditional unwillingness to inquire into congressional motives in the judging of legislation, see United States v.

NEWSLETTERS

But note that in Jenkins v. McKeithen, U. But note that in Stamler v. Willis, F. Justices Black and Douglas would have construed the resolution as granting the authority and would have voided it under the First Amendment. See also Sacher v. Virginia ex rel. Committee, U. In Deutch v. Justices Frankfurter, Clark, Harlan, and Whittaker dissented, arguing that any argument on pertinency had been waived but in any event thinking it had been established.

In Russell v. Indictments, which merely set forth the offense in the words of the contempt statute, the Court asserted, in alleging that the unanswered questions were pertinent to the subject under inquiry but not identifying the subject in detail, are defective because they do not inform defendants what they must be prepared to meet and do not enable courts to decide whether the facts alleged are sufficient to support convictions.

Justice Stewart for the Court noted that the indicia of subject matter under inquiry were varied and contradictory, thus necessitating a precise governmental statement of particulars. Justices Harlan and Clark in dissent contended that it was sufficient for the government to establish pertinency at trial and noted that no objections relating to pertinency had been made at the hearings. Russell was cited in the per curiam reversals in Grumman v. The subcommittee had reasonable ground to suppose that the petitioner was an active Communist Party member, and that as such he possessed information that would substantially aid it in its legislative investigation.

In both cases, the dissenters, Chief Justice Warren and Justices Black, Douglas, and Brennan argued that the Committee action was invalid because it was intended to harass persons who had publicly criticized committee activities. But, in United States v. Bryan, U. Justice Brennan concurred solely because the witness had not claimed the privilege against self-incrimination but he would have voted to reverse the conviction had there been a claim. Chief Justice Warren and Justice Douglas dissented on due process grounds. Justices Black, Frankfurter, and White did not participate. At the time of the decision, the Self-incrimination Clause did not restrain the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, so that it was no violation of the clause for either the Federal Government or the states to compel testimony which would incriminate the witness in the other jurisdiction.

United States v. Murdock, U. Schweitzer, U. The Court has since reversed itself, Malloy v. Hogan, U. Harris, U. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee, U. See also DeGregory v. Attorney General, U. Walling, U. McPhaul v.

Music discovery starts here.

The case was a civil suit brought by Anderson against the Sergeant at Arms of the House for assault and battery and false imprisonment. Kilbourn v. The power of a legislative body to punish for contempt one who disrupts legislative business was reaffirmed in Groppi v. Leslie, U. Although this case dealt with a state legislature, there is no question it would apply to Congress as well. With minor modification, this statute is now 2 U. McGahn refused because he knew that the story was true.

This section reveals that Trump became deeply frustrated with McGahn in private, even accusing him of leaking damaging information to the media. According to Porter, McGahn said the optics of a firing would be terrible, and he therefore refused to write such a letter denying the Times story.

Highlights From The Mueller Report, Annotated

Trump was clearly livid when he found out that his aides were taking notes to memorialize their conversations. The president also routinely referred to Roy Cohn as an example of someone who would protect him. This section deals with the potential dangling of pardons, and the idea that Trump tried to obstruct the investigation by preventing Manafort and others from cooperating. Here, Mueller is saying it was possible that Trump did not have a corrupt intent to directly influence the investigation.

History - annotated exemplars level 1 AS » NZQA

Mueller revealed that he did consider the Justice Department guidelines that indicated a sitting president may not be prosecuted, but he said the guidance does not preclude a thorough criminal investigation from taking place. We now know that the BuzzFeed story was inaccurate. Mueller used a separation-of-powers argument to reach the conclusion that Congress has the authority to evaluate presidential conduct that could be construed as obstruction of justice.

This is yet another data point Democrats can use to support their own obstruction investigation in the House Judiciary Committee. This could explain in part why Mueller was hesitant to bring charges against Trump. But prosecutors said they could not say with confidence that Trump did not commit obstruction of justice.

After Flynn announced his resignation, Priebus told Mueller that Trump hugged Flynn in the Oval Office and promised to take care of him. Mueller said the only way to prove intent to obstruct would be to prove Trump had a stake in the outcome of the Flynn investigation. But Sessions testified to Mueller that he believed Trump wanted Sessions to exert control to prevent the Russia probe from disrupting his ability to govern.

Mueller reveals that he interviewed deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein on May 23, , just six days after Mueller was appointed. Accordingly, the President accepted the recommendation of his Deputy Attorney General to remove James Corney from his position.

When the story came out, I kept track of where various conversations surrounding the story were happening, and invited Aline to get involved in the comments section of the story, which she did.

What is so valuable about them for writers of narrative nonfiction? These records transport you to a moment that would be almost impossible to recapture or reconstruct with the same authenticity. We definitely made up our workflow as we went along. We wanted all of these pieces to really speak with each other, and not be redundant. We also wanted to be able to try different combinations depending on which worked the best. Reporter Logan Jaffe works the project's visual storyboard, a color-coded outline of the various elements: the family's journal entries, the reporters' contextual passages and the annotations adding explanation and clarity Courtesy of ProPublica Illinois.

First, we printed out the journal. Then, we printed out the possible annotations. We cut each journal entry out with scissors. Then we cut each annotation out, too, and mounted each on two different colors of paper to indicate whose annotations they were.


  • Grillin, Chillin, and Swillin: (or How a Technology Geek Cooked His Way Through Unemployment).
  • Data Protection Choices.
  • J. R. R. Tolkien (Author of The Lord of the Rings);

We used large rolls of paper for each journal entry, and highlighted text within the journal entries that corresponded with the colors on which the annotations were mounted. Then we started taping annotations for those entries onto those sheets of paper. W hat was the goal of the interactive presentation? There are eight-year-old journal entries written by Aline, full of uncertainty and emotion; recent reflections on those entries by Aline and Wilson, offering the benefit of hindsight; and supplemental text by ProPublica which provides additional context from a somewhat clinical distance.

To manage those shifts in a reasonably subtle fashion requires careful attention to typography and layout. When the journal is interrupted by annotations or supplemental text, a sans-serif font helps the reader manage the shift in time frame back to the present day, and the speakers are color-coded: Aline and Wilson, the subjects of the story, get saturated colors; ProPublica, a bystander, gets a muted gray. Despite our best efforts, though, some readers might still find all this code-switching a bit overwhelming, which is why we included the option to hide annotations.

T he narrative structure is digressive, juxtaposing a chronological third-person narrative with first-person journal entries and annotations by Aline and Wilson. How did you decide when to shift gears — from narrative to journal and vice versa — as you structured and wrote the story?

Definition

JAFFE : In the storyboarding, we got a sense of where some holes were that we could fill in with our reporting. Those decisions were made based on narrative gaps, but also on whether we had information to clarify or expand on anything Aline wrote about in the journals. We also used it to build character and context to clarify the stakes throughout the story.

We had obtained other documents that help explain what Aline wrote in the journal, so we included some of those, as well as the responses from the university and Pavuluri. We had informal conversations with one another and as a group from the moment Jodi got the journal, as well as scheduled story meetings. Our editing process is very collaborative. Steve Mills did the primary hands-on editing and I jumped in as needed. H ow did Aline and Wilson respond to their story? Every time I thank her for working with us to tell her story, she turns around and thanks us for getting her story to the public despite how difficult it was to relive that challenging period in their lives.

H ow long did it take to produce the story, start to finish? KIERNAN : Jodi and Logan started putting the pieces together in the summer but we set the story aside for a couple of months while Jodi worked on a series of investigations into shelters for immigrant children in Chicago. Then we picked it back up in late September and the story ran in late October. Jodi obtained and reviewed hundreds of pages of documents to confirm what had happened to Wilson. She and Logan conducted hours of interviews with Aline and Wilson for the annotations.