Meese, E

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Edwin_Meese_III

primary hub 11/16 dark $, many tags

SEE TWO bak 819

NO MERRI

hub? the zelig of the right; the original originalist

opposed RR and B41 on montreal

mark levin, radio, ass't to meese landmark legal fdn iran contra

---

an 2 24

four House Republicans have sent a letter to Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith challenging his standing to prosecute former President Donald Trump.

The letter — which was co-signed by Reps. Eric Burlison (R- Missouri), Michael Cloud (R-Texas), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) and Anna Paulina Luna (R-Florida) — asserts that there has not been appropriate congressional oversight of Smith's office or his investigation into Trump. The letter's signatories are asking Smith to provide them with "all documents and communications concerning your authority" to empanel grand juries in the two federal court districts where he's prosecuting the former president, as well as Smith's authority to have those grand juries return indictments, and his authority to offer immunity in exchange for testimony as well as documents pertaining to DOJ oversight.

"We respectfully request a response from you on or before 1pm [on] February 9, 2024," Burlison, Cloud, Greene and Luna wrote.

:{:{Conservatives have argued that because Smith was not formally appointed by the president of the United States and confirmed by the US Senate, he is merely a private citizen and does not have the Constitutional authority to prosecute Trump.}:

Ed Meese, who was attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, filed an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals last month arguing that Smith's appointment was improper and that his prosecution of Trump is therefore null and void.:}:

"Not properly clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor," Meese's brief read. "Illegally appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court, or in the underlying prosecution, than Tom Brady, Warren Buffett, or Beyoncé."

Meese further argued that the statutory authority Attorney General Merrick Garland claimed gave him the power to appoint Smith as special counsel did not authorize "the appointment by the Attorney General of a private citizen to receive extraordinary criminal law enforcement power under the title of Special Counsel," adding that "there is no statute specifically authorizing the Attorney General, rather than the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint such a Special Counsel."

However, the DC Circuit is unlikely to take that argument seriously, as there have been three special counsel appointments not confirmed by the US Senate. In 1999, then-Attorney General Janet Reno appointed John Danforth as special counsel to investigate the siege of cult leader David Koresh's compound in Waco, Texas. Then in 2003, then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey — following the recusal of Attorney General John Ashcroft — appointed Patrick Fitzgerald as special counsel to oversee the Valerie Plame affair. And in 2017, Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel by then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to look into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself.

---

https://www.alternet.org/**2022/05**/scotus-blood-on-its-hands/

the court is about to take Second Amendment fundamentalism to a new and even more dangerous level.

If you're looking for someone or something to blame for the mass shootings that have left our schools, streets and communities soaked in blood, don't just point your finger at the deranged punks who pull the triggers, or the NRA and their lackeys in the Republican Party. Save at least some of your ire for the Supreme Court.

In 2008, the Supreme Court sold its soul to the gun lobby. In a 5-4 majority opinion written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms.[cruz?]

Prior to Heller, the great weight of academic scholarship as well as the court’s 1939 decision in United States v. Miller had construed the Second Amendment, in keeping with the actual debates of the Constitutional Convention, asprotecting gun ownership only in connection with service in long-since antiquated state militias.

In 2010, the court again genuflected to the gun lobby. In another 5-4 opinion in McDonald v. Chicago, this time written by Justice Samuel Alito, the court extended Heller, holding that the individual right to keep and bear arms is “incorporated” by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and is therefore applicable to the states and local governments.

The Second Amendment, as interpreted by Scalia and Alito, thus became the law of the land. The amendment has since been elevated in right-wing circles to the status of holy writ.

Both Heller and McDonald were based on the implausible and perverse judicial philosophy known as "originalism."

Originalism has led the court to enter a legal fantasy world in which the answers to contemporary questions about such matters as voting rights and gerrymandering, union organizing, the death penalty, abortion and gun control are to be found solely in the meaning that the Constitution had for the Founding Fathers in the late 18th Century.For originalists, the meaning of the Constitution is forever fixed, and can only be altered by constitutional amendments.

As a tool of judicial decision-making, originalism has been around a long time.One of its earliest expressions came in the *Dred Scott* case of 1857, perhaps the most odious decision ever issued by the Supreme Court, which held that Black Americans of African descent could never be U.S. Citizens. *Plessy v. Ferguson*, the 1896 decision that upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation even after the ratification of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, is another originalist landmark.

But as an explicit judicial theory, originalism came into its own in the early 1980s. Initially, as popularized by Reagan-era Attorney General Ed Meese and the late failed-Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, the doctrine asserted that the most important terms and provisions that appear in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights should be understood according to the “original intent” of the Founding Fathers, rather than as broad concepts that acquire depth, content and more complete meaning over time in response to changing social conditions.

When critics noted that the framers of the Constitution were a diverse group and that their actual intentions were varied and often ambiguous, proponents of the doctrine refined their approach. The current version—call it “new originalism”— focuses on the “original public meaning” of Constitutional provisions, which, they contend, can be ascertained from the recorded debates of the founding era and from such sources as late eighteenth-century dictionaries.

All originalists—whether of the old or new iteration—believe that their approach limits the subjectivity of judges and acts as a restraint on judicial activism.

In fact, originalism does nothing of the sort. As Fordham University history professor Saul Cornell, one of the foremost authorities on the history of the Second Amendment, noted in a scathing critique published in 2011 in Dissent magazine:

“[I]f one looks carefully at the murky methodology and dubious practices of new originalism, it is clear that its historical foundations are even shakier than that of old originalism. The new theory is little more than an intellectual shell game in which contemporary political preferences are shuffled around and made to appear part of the Constitution’s original meaning.”

The actual history of the Second Amendment is quite different from the fantasy versions advanced by Scalia and Alito. As the late Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by three of his colleagues, wrote for the minority in Heller:

“The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that thepower of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States.Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms.”

Although Heller and McDonald were the products of extreme rightwing judicial activism, they were technically limited in scope, as they dealt with the right to keep guns in the home. Ever since those cases were decided, however, the gun lobby has worked to bring a new test case to the Supreme Court to extend the right to bear arms beyond the home.

The lobby has finally found its vehicle in a new case--New York State Pistol Association v. Bruen-- that will be decided by the end of June, when the court completes its current term.

Bruenwas brought by two individuals and the state affiliate of the National Rifle Association to overturn a New York law that places limits on the issuance of concealed weapons permits to carry guns outside the home. Under New York’s regulatory scheme, people seeking such permits are required to demonstrate a special need for protection — “proper cause” in the words of the statute—to qualify. The NRA contends the law is unconstitutional.

After losing in the lower courts, the Bruen plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, where they are likely to prevail. With the addition of three Trump appointees—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—conservatives now hold a solid 6-3 majority on the bench. No longer constrained by the need for caution and compromise, they are set to dramatically extend gun rights under the Second Amendment.

Originalism was front and center during the oral arguments the court heard in the case last November.

During the arguments, the Justices paid scant attention to the dire consequences of unleashing more guns on the streets and subways of present-day New York City. They instead peppered the attorneys for both sides with questions about the origins under Anglo-American law of the right to carry arms in public places. At several points in the two-hour session, the attorneys were asked to share their thoughts on whether the Statute of Northampton, an act of the English Parliament passed in 1328, banned the carrying of weapons other than by the king’s servants in fairs and markets.

The questioning would have made for an amusing Saturday Night Live or Monty Python skit, but this was no stand-up bit. Commenting on the oral arguments, Professor Cornell told the BBC it was “beyond ironic” that anyone would look to Medieval England for resolution of the case. "It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever to anyone who really understands the complexity of English history. Obviously, that doesn't include many people in the gun rights community or many people sitting on some courts in America."

Should the New York statute be declared unconstitutional, similar measures in California, New Jersey, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and elsewhere will likely fall, with dire and deadly consequences for public safety. Worse still, depending on the scope of the court's ruling, other gun-control laws on background checks and the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines could become vulnerable to constitutional challenges.

The gun homicide rate in the United States is nearly eight times higher than the rate in Canada, and a whopping 100 times higher than in Britain. This year is shaping up to be particularly horrific. As of May 30, the United States had recorded 17,817 deaths from firearms, counting both suicides and unlawful killings, according to the Washington, D.C.-based Gun Violence Archive. We also had recorded 228 mass shootings (defined as an event involving four or more victims).

In any sane democracy, one might expect the highest court in the land to step in and do something to uphold sensible gun-control regulations when given the opportunity. But in fact, our Supreme Court is poised to do just the opposite. Keep that in mind when the next mass shooting inevitably occurs, perhaps in a neighborhood close to your own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidential_Medal_of_Freedom_recipients

https://www.desmogblog.com/2015/12/18/bush-sr-cabinet-was-worried-about-climate-change-27-years-ago

12/15

The agreement that was hammered out in Paris at the recent climate talks will be a great step forward towards addressing the growing threat of climate change. But lost amongst the applause for the accord is a question that needs to be answered: Why did it take so long, and are we too late?

Two weeks ago, memos from the George H.W. Bush administration were released that detailed conversations between Bush Sr.’s cabinet members, where they discussed the growing threat of global climate change…27 years ago.

The Hill has posted parts of those conversations:

“Global climate change is the most far reaching environmental issue of our time,” a 1989 memo from Acting Assistant Secretary of StateRichard J. Smith said. “If the climate change within the range of current predictions actually occurs, the consequences for every nation and every aspect of human activity will be profound.”

Writing to Secretary of State James Baker, Smith said, “As you yourself stated we cannot wait until all the uncertainties have been resolved before we act to limit greenhouse gas emissions and to prepare for whatever climate change we are already committed to.”

Those conversations took place over 27 years ago, and in the present day, leaders in the United States are still having debates about climate change. And not just about how to act, but we’ve regressed to the point that we are still debating whether or not the problem even exists.

But Bush Sr. was not the first Republican president to understanding the growing threat of climate change. The newly released memos also tell us that the problem was discussed among Ronald Reagan’s cabinet members.

These two Republicans were then followed by Democrat Bill Clinton (whose vice President, Al Gore, has been one of the leaders in the United States pushing for action on climate change), then by Republican George W. Bush, and finally by Democrat Barack Obama.

And it wasn’t until the summer of 2015 — more than 30 years after the first U.S. presidents were warned about the dangers of growing emissions — that we got our first real set of rules to reduce our carbon emissions in a meaningful way.

So why did it take so long when both Reagan and Bush Sr. were advised of the threats?

The memos shed some light on the fact that both men, and their respective advisors, were actually trying to accomplish something with regards to climate change action:

In connection with the Montreal Protocol (negotiated in 1987 and put into effect in 1989), both Reagan and Bush 41 showed a clear desire to tackle environmental concerns and to lead the global community in that effort, according to the documents. Protests by the Domestic Policy Council, led by Attorney General Edwin Meese, and other agency heads led Reagan to step in to ensure adoption of the final set of U.S. objectives for the treaty. Bush basically shared his predecessor’s views on entering office in January 1989.

Both presidents’ secretaries of state, George P. Shultz and James A. Baker III, played key roles in blocking efforts by other Cabinet secretaries to frustrate implementation of more environmentally friendly policies. For example, memos for senior State Department officials in today’s posting note that “Global climate change is the most far reaching environmental issue of our time” and that notwithstanding the need for continued research, “We simply cannot wait – the costs of inaction will be too high.”

Republicans have rightfully taken a lot of heat for their refusal to accept the science behind climate change, but clearly this wasn’t always the case.

Unfortunately, this new information only raises more questions than it answers. For example, Bush Sr. built on the success of Reagan’s Montreal accord, so why did Bill Clinton drop the ball?

George W. Bush’s father believed in climate change, so why did he refuse to acknowledge the threat until his last few years in office, and then he still refused to act? (He also pulled us out of the Kyoto Protocol.)

And most importantly, why did Barack Obama — the first president to address climate change in both campaigns and since taking office — take seven years to give us an emissions reduction rule?

We can blame obstruction from deniers or the influence of fossil fuel money all day long, and they do deserve a large share of the blame. But the politicians are not the main problem. The real problem lies with American voters. They are the ones who put science deniers in office, and they are the ones who are not demanding action.

Voters hold all of the power in the United States, and until they realize this, we will continue to get watered down safety standards that pay lip service to the problem while the planet continues to burn.

MONTREAL

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB536-Reagan-Bush-Recognized-Need-for-US-Leadership-on-Climate-Change-in-1980s/

Climate Change Policy in the 1980s

MONTREAL

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB536-Reagan-Bush-Recognized-Need-for-US-Leadership-on-Climate-Change-in-1980s/

Climate Change Policy in the 1980s

GOP Presidents Recognized Need for U.S. Leadership on Ozone Depletion and Climate Change

Reagan Overruled Cabinet Members Opposed to Montreal Protocol on Ozone Layer

Bush 41's State Department Warned "We Simply Cannot Wait" to Take Action on Climate Change

Stances Are at Odds with 2015 GOP Presidential Candidates

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book #536

Edited by Robert A. Wampler, PhD

December 2, 2015

For more information contact: Robert A. Wampler, 202/994-7000 or wampler@gwu.edu

Related links

Reagan, Bush 41 memos reveal sharp contrast with today’s GOP on climate and the environment

The Washington Post

December 3, 2015

[related: The evolution of the GOP’s approach to a crisis

MSNBC

By Steve Benen

December 3, 2015

Memos show Bush advisers worried about climate change

The Hill

December 3, 2015

Kyoto Redux?

Obama's Challenges at Copenhagen Echo Clinton's at Kyoto

by Robert Wampler

December 18, 2009]

Washington, D.C., December 2, 2015 – Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush actively promoted measures to combat climate change, with Reagan in 1987 overruling objections within his own Cabinet to a major proposed treaty to protect the ozone layer, according to recently declassified records posted today by the George Washington University-based National Security Archive (www.nsarchive.org). As world leaders, including President Barack Obama, meet in Paris for the latest round of climate talks, the posting reveals a desire by the two Republican leaders from the 1980s for strong American leadership on climate issues that sometimes resembles the Obama White House view more than that of many of today’s top GOP officials – or presidential candidates.

In connection with the Montreal Protocol (negotiated in 1987 and put into effect in 1989), both Reagan and Bush 41 showed a clear desire to tackle environmental concerns and to lead the global community in that effort, according to the documents. Protests by the Domestic Policy Council, led by Attorney General Edwin Meese, and other agency heads led Reagan to step in to ensure adoption of the final set of U.S. objectives for the treaty. Bush basically shared his predecessor’s views on entering office in January 1989.

Both presidents’ secretaries of state, George P. Shultz and James A. Baker III, played key roles in blocking efforts by other Cabinet secretaries to frustrate implementation of more environmentally friendly policies.For example, memos for senior State Department officials in today’s posting note that “Global climate change is the most far reaching environmental issue of our time” and that notwithstanding the need for continued research, “We simply cannot wait – the costs of inaction will be too high.”

Today’s posting features documents obtained by the National Security Archive under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A follow-up posting on the Clinton administration’s climate policies will appear later this month.

...

Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, which entered into force on January 1, 1989, stands as the most successful and widely ratified international environmental agreement. The U.S. lead negotiator, Richard Elliot Benedick, authored a comprehensive history of the negotiations that is critical for understanding the underlying scientific issues as well as the complex domestic politics and international diplomacy surrounding the talks.[[4]](https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB536-Reagan-Bush-Recognized-Need-for-US-Leadership-on-Climate-Change-in-1980s/#_edn4) As Benedick discusses, and as the documents posted today illustrate, U.S. leadership was vital to the successful negotiation of a strong ozone treaty with a clear and firm timetable for reducing production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons that degrade atmospheric ozone. This leadership, however, was not unanimously supported within the Reagan administration, and the State Department, working with the Environmental Protection Agency, had to fight back attempts to weaken the agreement.[[5]](https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB536-Reagan-Bush-Recognized-Need-for-US-Leadership-on-Climate-Change-in-1980s/#_edn5)

As the documents show, State was concerned that if a “dysfunctional” DPC resulted in an about-face by the U.S. regarding the goals it had pressed for in the negotiation, it “would damage our international credibility, unleash major domestic criticism, and probably result in unilateral U.S.” controls on ozone-depleting chemicals. The last point was driven by the likelihood that if an international agreement was not reached, the courts would compel EPA to impose unilateral reductions, which would hurt U.S industry. (SeeDocument 5 on this concern.) To head off this possibility, Under Secretary of State John Negroponte successfully urged Secretary of State George P. Shultz to write to Attorney General Meese laying out the serious repercussions from such a reversal. (Document 3; a copy of Shultz’s letter, presenting the points outlined by Negroponte, can be found in Document 6.)

...

Document 3. Memorandum, John Negroponte to Secretary of State George Shultz, May 29, 1987, Subject: Ozone Negotiations: Letter to Attorney General Meese.

Source: Department of State FOIA

The internal debate over the proposal ozone agreement came to a head in the summer of 1987, leading Negroponte to urge Secretary of State Shultz to write to Attorney General Ed Meese (the Chairman of the Domestic Policy Council) expressing his strong support for the established U.S. position in the negotiations, and to propose securing a Presidential decision to close the debate. Negroponte writes that “Many regard this issue as the most important priority on the global environmental agenda,” and highlights the role played by the State Department, and the EPA to bring the other governments to follow the U.S. position, which had been developed through “intensive interagency deliberations” leading up to approval of the U.S. negotiating authority in November 1986.

Now, however, some agencies, in particular Interior and OSTP, had raised questions about the scientific basis for the agreement and the effects of the proposed CFC reductions on U.S. industry. Negroponte warns Shultz that “The positions proposed by Interior and OSTP would undo the progress achieved to date and make the Administration appear less serious about protecting the ozone layer” than other countries supporting the protocol. Such an about-face “would damage our international credibility, unleash major domestic criticism, and probably result in unilateral U.S.” controls on ozone-depleting chemicals. By contrast, the U.S. current position is “responsible and pragmatic, prudently addressing the environmental risks, while providing a market stimulus and a reasonable time-frame for industry to develop alternate products.” All in all, Negroponte warns that the DPC process is “dysfunctional” on this matter, and if not addressed, “could cause needless embarrassment to the Administration on an issue which is attracting growing attention from Congress and public interest groups,” a judgment which is shared by the National Security Council...

Document 6. Memorandum, Richard E. Benedick (OES) to the Deputy Secretary, June 9, 1987, Subject: Domestic Policy Council Meeting on Protocol to Control Ozone-Depleting Chemicals – 11:00 a.m., Thursday, June 11 [with attached documents].

Source: Department of State FOIA

The State Department’s ongoing struggle within Reagan’s Cabinet with opponents of the proposed ozone protocol is the focus of this memorandum from the chief U.S. negotiator. The DPC meeting on the topic on May 20 had failed to resolve these deep divisions, and, as Negroponte recommended (see Document 3), Secretary Shultz had written to Attorney General Meese on June 1 pressing the urgent need to sustain U.S. support of the ozone agreement (see Shultz letter attached to this document). Now, Benedick recommends that Deputy Secretary Whitehead should push for DPC agreement that the U.S. continue to negotiate for a strong ozone agreement, or failing this, to put the matter before President Reagan as soon as possible for his decision.

The attached talking points stress the “risks of loss of international credibility, domestic political backlash, and undesirable unilateral regulation if we fail to continue the . . . successful U.S. leadership role” in the talks. Other attachments include the key points in the Circular 175 memorandum setting down the U.S. negotiating objectives for the ozone talks; a November 28, 1986 memorandum from Negroponte to Acting Secretary Wallis seeking approval of Circular 175; and a May 18, 1987 memorandum for the Domestic Policy Council from the Energy, Natural Resources & Environment Group discussing the key issues surrounding the proposed agreement in detail.

see bush 41:

The Hill posted parts of those conversations:

“Global climate change is the most far-reaching environmental issue of our time,” a 1989 memo from Acting Assistant Secretary of State Richard J. Smithsaid. “If the climate change within the range of current predictions actually occurs, the consequences for every nation and every aspect of human activity will be profound.”

Writing to Secretary of State James Baker,Smith said, “As you yourself stated we cannot wait until all the uncertainties have been resolved before we act to limit greenhouse gas emissions and to prepare for whatever climate change we are already committed to.”

But Bush Sr. was not the first Republican president to understanding the growing threat of climate change. The recently released memos also tell us that the problem was discussed among Ronald Reagan’s cabinet members.

And it wasn’t until the summer of 2015—more than 30 years after the first U.S. presidents were warned about the dangers of growing emissions—that we got our first real set of rules to reduce our carbon emissions in a meaningful way.

So why did it take so long when both Reagan and Bush Sr. were advised of the threats?

The memos shed some light on the fact that both men, and their respective advisors, were actually trying to accomplish something with regards to climate change action:

In connection with the Montreal Protocol (negotiated in 1987 and put into effect in 1989), both Reagan and Bush 41 showed a clear desire to tackle environmental concerns and to lead the global community in that effort, according to the documents. Protests by the Domestic Policy Council, led by Attorney General Edwin Meese, and other agency heads led Reagan to step in to ensure adoption of the final set of U.S. objectives for the treaty. Bush basically shared his predecessor’s views on entering office in January 1989....

newsmax bs

son of one the most important figures in Ronald Reagan’s political career and presidency is fast becoming the leading candidate to becomesecretary of the army under President Trump.

Sources at the White House told Newsmax on Friday that retired U.S. Army Brigadier General Michael Meese has emerged as Trump’s top choice for the top civilian position in the Army.

Speculation about Meese, son of Reagan's White House Counselor and Attorney General Ed Meese, began when Trump's first choice Vincent Viola withdrew his nomination after citing trouble disengaging from his business.

Gen. Meese served in Afghanistan as the top deputy at the International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) for General David Petraeusand also served with U.S. forces in Iraq. He was also head of the Department of Social Science at West Point and, most recently, headed the American Armed Forces Mutual Aid Association to help veterans....

daily caller bs

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/23/is-free-speech-under-attack-by-tech-companies-and-media-outlets-with-a-left-leaning-agenda/

...

ProPublica’s article didn’t target other organizations that are easily considered hate sites like The Daily Stormer, but instead targeted JihadWatch.org, for their director taking the position that “traditional Islam itself is not moderate or peaceful.” This position is certainly debatable, but hardly constitutes white supremacy. The SPLC called them “extremely hostile” to Muslims and labeled them a hate group.

“But its designation as a hate site hasn’t stopped tech companies — including PayPal, Amazon and Newsmax — from maintaining partnerships withJihad Watch that help to sustain it financially,” lamented ProPublica.

CNN released the SPLC’s hate group list last Thursday without questioning its political leanings. Many organizations on the list are wrongly labeled hate groups for supporting conservative causes, including the Center for Immigration Studies, Alliance Defending Freedom, ACT for America, and Americans For Legal Immigration (ALIPAC).

In July, former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese wrote a scathing opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal hammering the media for parroting the SPLC’s designation of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberties, as a hate group.

“The designation had nothing to do with the law firm’s policies or behavior,” Meese wrote. “It’s just that the SPLC objects to its traditional views on the Constitution, the First Amendment and the meaning of marriage. No responsible media outlet should parrot the SPLC’s hate list without seeking to understand not only its motives but also the consequences of spreading false charges.”

ProPublica defends the SPLC’s credibility by pointing out that Dylann Roof, a white supremacist convicted of murdering nine black people at a church in Charleston, frequented a “white nationalist” website included on SPLC’s hate group list.

ProPublica also claims that the SPLC provides “detailed explanations for many of its designations,” specifically singling out the Family Research Center, a traditional Christian group, in the article as an example of a hate group for using “discredited science and unsubstantiated attacks” on gays and lesbians.

Never mentioned, however, is the Family Research Center was at the center of a domestic terrorist attack after the attacker found the Christian group listed by the SPLC as “anti-gay.” Shortly after the attack, the FBI dropped both the SPLC and the ADL as a “resource” to determine hate groups.

[after mtg w/ congr staffrs not names: http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/03/exclusive-fbi-removed-splc-and-adl-from-civil-rights-resources-pages-because-of-a-number-of-concerns/]

ALIPAC released a press statement Tuesday aimed at “Google, PayPal, Facebook, and Twitter” for “taking steps to suppress and silence websites and groups” under the direction of “alt-left” organizations such as the SPLC and the ADL.

“Since these companies are now clearly in a position of power and supremacy capable of having a chilling impact on public issue debates and elections as well as the Civil Rights of all Americans, ALIPAC is now asking Congress to step in and apply new regulations to the global communications and financial companies Google, PayPal, Facebook, and Twitter,” the statement reads.

...

Conservative Action Project gathering, at the downtown offices of the Family Research Council, drew a number of prominent conservatives, including former Attorney General Ed Meese, former American Spectator publisher Alfred Regnery, and former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell. Jerry Boykin, a top Family Research Council official, was also present.

11/16

https://www.propublica.org/article/the-conservative-playbook-for-keeping-dark-money-dark

http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/m/edwin-meese

6/16 still kicking 85 yrs old born 1931

bs bio

Edwin Meese III

Expert on Legal Issues,National Security and Defense,Supreme Court Vacancy,Civil Justice Reform,Crime,Overcriminalization

Edwin Meese III, the prominent conservative leader, thinker and elder statesman, continues a quarter-century formal association with The Heritage Foundation as the leading think tank’s Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow Emeritus.

In that capacity, Meese oversees special projects and acts as an ambassador for Heritage within the conservative movement.

Meese was chairman of Heritage’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies from its founding in 2001 until what he calls his “semi-retirement” on Feb. 1, 2013.

He joined Heritage in 1988 as the think tank's first Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow -- the only policy chair in the country to be officially named for the 40th president. His work focused on keeping President Reagan’s legacy of conservative principles alive in public debate and discourse.

The legal center now bears his name, in recognition of Meese’s contributions to the rule of law and the nation’s understanding of constitutional law. Its mission is to educate government officials, the media and the public about the Constitution and legal principles -- and how they affect public policy.

Perhaps best known as U.S. attorney general during Reagan’s second term, Meese’s service to the conservative icon stretched from the California governor’s mansion in 1966 to the White House in 1981 before he went to the Department of Justice four years later.

His Heritage “hats” kept Meese among the major conservative voices in national policy debates at an age when most men and women enjoyed quiet retirements.

In 2006, for example, Meese was named to the Iraq Study Group, a special presidential commission dedicated to examining the best resolutions for America's involvement in Iraq. In the past few years he wrote and spoke about constitutional topics ranging from religious liberty to the responsibility of Supreme Court justices.

Immediately after Reagan's death in 2004, and in the years since, Meese often agreed to major media appearances to discuss the lasting impact of his old friend, mentor and boss. He has summarized the Reagan legacy in three accomplishments: Reagan cut taxes and kept them low. He worked to defeat and end the Soviet Union and its worldwide push for communism. And he restored America's faith in itself after years of failure and "malaise."

"I admired him as a leader and cherish his friendship," Meese wrote in a 2004 essay for Heritage members and supporters. "Ronald Reagan had strong convictions. He was committed to the principles that had led to the founding of our nation. And he had the courage to follow his convictions against all odds."

Edwin Meese III was born Dec. 2, 1931, to Edwin Jr. and Leone Meese in Oakland, Calif. He graduated from Yale University in 1953 and holds a law degree from the University of California-Berkeley.

Meese spent much of his adult life working for Reagan, first after the former actor, sports announcer and athlete was elected as California’s governor in 1966 and then when he sought and won the presidency in 1980.

Reagan never forgot Meese's loyalty and hard work. During a press conference at which reporters questioned Meese's actions at the Justice Department, Reagan replied: "If Ed Meese is not a good man, there are no good men."

During the Reagan governorship, Meese served as executive assistant and chief of staff from 1969 through 1974 and as legal affairs secretary from 1967 through 1968. He previously was deputy district attorney in Alameda County, Calif.

From January 1981 to February 1985, Meese held the position of counsellor to the president -- the senior job on the White House staff -- and functioned as Reagan's chief policy adviser. In 1985, he received Government Executive magazine's annual award for excellence in management.

Meese served as the 75th attorney general of the United States from February 1985 to August 1988. As the nation's chief law enforcement officer, he directed the Justice Department andled international efforts to combat terrorism, drug trafficking and organized crime.

Meese’s relationship with Heritage began when he met with senior management to discuss the think tank's landmark policy guide, Mandate for Leadership, prepared for the incoming administration. Meese later recalled that Reagan personally handed out copies of the 1,093-page book to members of his Cabinet and asked them to read it. Nearly two-thirds of Mandate's 2,000 recommendations would be adopted or attempted by the Reagan administration.

More than a decade after joining Heritage, Meese assumed the chairmanship of its Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Under his guidance, the center counseled White House staffers, Justice Department officials and Senate Judiciary Committee members on the importance of filling judicial vacancies with qualified men and women who are committed to interpreting the Constitution according to the founding document's original meaning.

The center became known for hosting "moot court" practice sessions to sharpen the arguments of attorneys slated to bring important cases before the Supreme Court. Those cases addressed constitutional issues ranging from property rights to racial preferences in primary and secondary schools to restrictions on free speech in campaign finance law.

Meese headed the legal center's Advisory Board for the writing and editing of the best-selling book,The Heritage Guide to the Constitution(Regnery, 2005). In it, 109 experts walked readers through a clause-by-clause analysis of the Constitution. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)was among those keeping the reference work handy during Judiciary Committee hearings on Supreme Court nominees.

Meese's other books include “Leadership, Ethics and Policing” (Prentice Hall, 2004); “Making America Safer” (Heritage, 1997); and “With Reagan: The Inside Story”(Regnery Gateway, 1992).He wrote the Introduction to a well-received 2010 book on the “overcriminalization” trend, “*One Nation Under Arrest*,” by Heritage veterans Paul Rosenzweig and Brian W. Walsh.

He also is a distinguished visiting fellow at theHoover Institution at Stanford University in California and lectures, writes and consults throughout the United States on a variety of subjects.

As both attorney general and counsellor to Reagan, Meese was a member of the Cabinet and the National Security Council. He served as chairman of the Domestic Policy Council and the National Drug Policy Board. After Reagan won the White House in the 1980 election, Meese headed the transition team. During the campaign, he was the Reagan-Bush Committee's senior official.

Meese had a career outside government and politics. From 1977 to 1981, he was a law professor at the University of San Diego, where he also directed the Center for Criminal Justice Policy and Management.

He was an executive in the aerospace and transportation industry as vice president for administration of Rohr Industries Inc. in Chula Vista, Calif. He left Rohr to return to the practice of law, doing corporate and general work in San Diego County.

A retired colonel in the Army Reserve, Meese remains active in numerous civic and educational organizations.

He and his wife, Ursula, have two grown children and reside in McLean, Va.

And it wasn’t until the summer of 2015—more than 30 years after the first U.S. presidents were warned about the dangers of growing emissions—that we got our first real set of rules to reduce our carbon emissions in a meaningful way.

So why did it take so long when both Reagan and Bush Sr. were advised of the threats?

The memos shed some light on the fact that both men, and their respective advisors, were actually trying to accomplish something with regards to climate change action:

In connection with the Montreal Protocol (negotiated in 1987 and put into effect in 1989), both Reagan and Bush 41 showed a clear desire to tackle environmental concerns and to lead the global community in that effort, according to the documents. Protests by the Domestic Policy Council, led by Attorney General Edwin Meese,and other agency heads led Reagan to step in to ensure adoption of the final set of U.S. objectives for the treaty. Bush basically shared his predecessor’s views on entering office in January 1989.

Both presidents’ secret...

http://www.alternet.org/environment/george-bush-srs-cabinet-was-worried-about-climate-change-27-years-ago

refs http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB536-Reagan-Bush-Recognized-Need-for-US-Leadership-on-Climate-Change-in-1980s/

...

It is no surprise that Republican Party leaders and presidential candidates have voiced their vehement opposition to these moves. For some time now, it seems that the Republican Party’s skeptical stance or even denial of climate change and the need for steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a core commitment, if not a badge of honor. This was seen when GOP politicians joined with coal and other energy industries to criticize President Obama’s new clean-air regulations and the Keystone decision.[[2]](http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB536-Reagan-Bush-Recognized-Need-for-US-Leadership-on-Climate-Change-in-1980s/#_edn2)This criticism has even extended to Pope Francis’ recent encyclical on climate change that called the fight against global warming a moral imperative, as even Catholic Republican presidential candidates sought ways to distance themselves from the Pope’s position.[[3]](http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB536-Reagan-Bush-Recognized-Need-for-US-Leadership-on-Climate-Change-in-1980s/#_edn3)

This lock-step opposition, however, has not always been the case. Recently declassified documents provide evidence that there was a keen appreciation by the Reagan and Bush I administrations of the need to address global environmental challenges, in particular those related to human-driven degradation of the atmosphere and global warming. Despite its overall ideological adherence to small government and free market economics, the Reagan administration did demonstrate significant U.S. leadership in tackling the risks posed by the production and use of ozone-depleting chemicals. Similarly, the George H. W. Bush administration entered office in 1989 with an eye towards building on this leadership to push for international conferences to address a wide range of environmental problems, including climate change. The Bush I administration would back off from this stance, however, in the face of growing business opposition to strong steps to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, leaving it to the Clinton White House to revitalize U.S. leadership on these issues.

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, which entered into force on January 1, 1989, stands as the most successful and widely ratified international environmental agreement. The U.S. lead negotiator, Richard Elliot Benedick, authored a comprehensive history of the negotiations that is critical for understanding the underlying scientific issues as well as the complex domestic politics and international diplomacy surrounding the talks.[[4]](http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB536-Reagan-Bush-Recognized-Need-for-US-Leadership-on-Climate-Change-in-1980s/#_edn4) As Benedick discusses, and as the documents posted today illustrate, U.S. leadership was vital to the successful negotiation of a strong ozone treaty with a clear and firm timetable for reducing production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons that degrade atmospheric ozone. This leadership, however, was not unanimously supported within the Reagan administration, and the State Department, working with the Environmental Protection Agency, had to fight back attempts to weaken the agreement.[[5]](http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB536-Reagan-Bush-Recognized-Need-for-US-Leadership-on-Climate-Change-in-1980s/#_edn5)

The U.S. goals for the ozone treaty as it entered the final talks are laid out in Documents 1 and 4 in this compilation. These goals can be summarized as a near-term freeze on emissions of the key ozone-depleting substances, combined with subsequent reductions to near zero, with the interim targets subject to revision based on periodic review incorporating reassessments of the underlying science. The need for continued U.S. leadership to secure an ozone treaty that embodies these goals is discussed in Documents 2, 3and 6. These latter documents address the battle waged by theState Department within the Domestic Policy Council (DPC), chaired by Attorney General Ed Meese, against a rear-guard effort by Secretary of the Interior Donald Hodel, the office of the Special Trade Representative and the Office of Management and Budget to scale back the commitments made under the proposed treaty, based on questions about the underlying science and the impact on U.S. industry.As the documents show, State was concerned that if a “dysfunctional” DPC resulted in an about-face by the U.S. regarding the goals it had pressed for in the negotiation, it “would damage our international credibility, unleash major domestic criticism, and probably result in unilateral U.S.” controls on ozone-depleting chemicals. The last point was driven by the likelihood that if an international agreement was not reached, the courts would compel EPA to impose unilateral reductions, which would hurt U.S industry. (SeeDocument 5 on this concern.) To head off this possibility, Under Secretary of State John Negroponte successfully urged Secretary of State George P. Shultz to write to Attorney General Meese laying out the serious repercussions from such a reversal. (Document 3; a copy of Shultz’s letter, presenting the points outlined by Negroponte, can be found in Document 6.)

In the end, President Reagan had to intervene and overrule the dissenting Cabinet members to approve the U.S. goals for the treaty.[[6]](http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB536-Reagan-Bush-Recognized-Need-for-US-Leadership-on-Climate-Change-in-1980s/#_edn6) Following the adoption of the Montreal Protocol on September 16, 1987, which largely conformed to U.S. objectives, Reagan submitted the treaty to Congress for ratification, which occurred in April 1988. The draft memorandum from Secretary Shultz to Reagan (Document 7) describes the Montreal Protocol as “an important instrument for the protection of a critical global environmental resource.” Without the treaty, with ozone degradation unchecked, the prospect was for an increase in skin cancer, suppression of human immune responses, reduced crop yields, adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems and “potentially significant climatic changes.”

The George H. W. Bush administration entered office in 1989 with plans to build upon this success. Already in 1988, the U.S. had supported creation within the UN of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to carry out systematic research into the causes of global climate change and to assess potential strategies to address it.[[7]](http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB536-Reagan-Bush-Recognized-Need-for-US-Leadership-on-Climate-Change-in-1980s/#_edn7) As a candidate, Bush had called for an international conference on environmental issues, and new Secretary of State James Baker had strongly supported the work of the IPCC. Documents 8-11 provide insight into how Baker’s State Department viewed the range of global environmental issues facing the world, and the need for continued strong U.S. leadership to address them. The need for determined action on climate change is underscored in these documents. As briefing memoranda stressed, “Global climate change is the most far reaching environmental issue of our time. If the climate change within the range of current predictions actually occurs, the consequences for every nation and every aspect of human activity will be profound.” (Documents9 and 10) While recognizing the need for continued research, this could not be used as an excuse for delay: “We simply cannot wait – the costs of inaction will be too high.” (Document 8) Furthermore, the U.S. could not hope to persuade other nations to take necessary steps to meet this challenge if it would not do so itself. (Document 9)

As the course of subsequent negotiations demonstrates, addressing climate change is a challenge much more complex than protecting the ozone layer, as proposals to curb greenhouse emissions will affect a much broader range of industries, from energy to manufacturing and transportation. The road towards the current Paris conference began during the Bush I administration when the UN moved forward in establishing the framework for addressing climate change. In December 1990, the UN General Assembly created the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework Agreement on Climate Change. The committee drafted the Framework Convention on Climate Change that was signed at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development. But in this same period the domestic opponents of strong curbs on greenhouse emissions had grown in number and strength, producing the coalition of Republican political leaders and industrial interests that are so prominent today. The efforts of the Clinton administration to provide renewed global leadership in this changed political environment, leading to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, is the focus of the second EBB in this series, to be posted next week.

see iran contrabook cspan malcolm byrne the diversion is the diversion: memo said Ollie would divert 12m$ to Contras; Meese knew much he could not insulate RR from, but this he could [went astray b/c of typo?] Dems did not want blood/impeachment; many mods in comm but all GOP meateaters, eg Hatch Cheney)

impeach obama on guns?

:{http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com:(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}::{/2013/:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}::{01/impeach-obama-guns-edwin-meese.php:(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:

Former Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese, now a prominent emeritus official at the Heritage Foundation, became the latest conservative to warn that President Obama could risk impeachment if he takes executive action on reducing gun violence in an interview Monday night.

Speaking with Newsmax, Meese said Congress may have to consider impeaching Obama if he were “to try to override the Second Amendment in any way” with an executive order. He did allow that there are some executive actions related to guns that Obama could take wouldn’t be impeachable.

“It would be up to the Congress to take action, such as looking in to it to see if, in fact, he has really tried to override the Constitution itself,” Meese told Newsmax. “In which case, it would be up to them to determine what action they should take — and perhaps even to the point of impeachment.”

http://en.:{wikipedia:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:.org/wiki/Edwin_Meese

Edwin "Ed" Meese, III (born December 2, 1931) is an attorney, law professor, and author who served in official capacities within the Ronald Reagan Gubernatorial Administration (1967–1974), the Reagan Presidential Transition Team (1980), and the Reagan White House (1981–1985), eventually rising to hold the position of the 75th Attorney General of the United States (1985–1988). He currently holds fellowships and chairmanships with several public policy councils and think tanks, including the Constitution Project and The Heritage Foundation.^[1] He is also a Distinguished Visiting Fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.^[2] He currently sits on the National Advisory Board of Center for Urban Renewal and Education. He is on theboard of directors of The **Federalist Society**for Law and Public Policy Studies.^[3]

...

On Monday, September 14, 1981, Meese chaired the first White House discussion of what would become Reagan's :{Strategic Defense Initiative:(style="background-color:#fff200"):}: (SDI), i.e. missile defense, program.^[7]

Although few in the Reagan White House were interested in pursuing social policy, Meese served as a liaison to the :{conservative evangelical:(style="background-color:#fff200"):}: community, arranging for meetings between social conservative leaders and the president. Meese was lauded by social conservatives for his address to the Congress on the Bible in March 1982, when he said, "Someone has estimated that throughout the course of history man has adopted over four billion laws. It seems to me, with all that effort, we haven't improved one iota on the Ten Commandments."^[15]

Near the end of Reagan's presidency, Meese's involvement in the Iran-Contra affair as a "counselor" and "friend" to Reagan was scrutinized by the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters, which stated in its official report that Meese's knowledge of the 1985 HAWK transaction "raised serious legal questions."^[16]

Meese was considered a powerful and influential figure inside the White House. Said former Reagan advisor and journalist David Gergen, "He's a tremendously influential and highly valued adviser to the President who advises on issues all across the board. He's one of the men who has known [the President] so long and so well he's become almost an alter ego of Ronald Reagan."^[7]

Iraq - Jordan Pipeline Scandal

During the 1980's, James McKay, an independent prosecutor, was appointed to investigate alleged financial improprieties by Meese while he was attorney general. As part of this investigation, McKay looked into Meese's involvement in a Bechtel pipeline deal in the Middle East. ^[17] The pipeline was to extend from Iraq to Jordan and was negotiated by Meese, Shimon Peres, Bruce Rappaport, Robert C. McFarlane, and others. Although he was not prosecuted,Meese ultimately resigned.

Service as U.S. Attorney General and Wedtech Scandal

Meese became Attorney General in February 1985, holding this office until August, 1988, when he resigned due to his role in the Wedtech scandal.^[18] It was during this tenure that D. Lowell Jensen, Meese's former superior at the Alameda County District Attorney's Office, served as his Deputy Attorney General and thus the second-ranking official in the Justice Department.^[8] Reagan publicly voiced support for Meese in his role as Attorney General, stating during a press conference, "If Ed Meese is not a good man, there are no good men" in response to questions about his actions at the Justice Department.^[19]

In 1985, Meese received Government Executive magazine's annual award for excellence in management for his service in this role.^[19]

Conservatives Seeks To Reform Justice System To Lock Up Fewer Criminals

Submitted by Kyle on December 15, 2010 - 12:33pm

Here is something that you don't see every day: a group of leading conservatives calling for legal reform because we are locking too many people up in prison:

A group of national conservatives led by Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, Russell Keene of the American Conservative Union, and former Attorney General Ed Meese unveiled the“Right On Crime” initiative and website. The group held a conference call this morning to unveil the website.

Texas Public Policy Foundation President Brooke L. Rollins told reporters that Texas saved billions while its crime rate declined 9 percent. Rollins said the project will help cash-strapped state save money while continuing to crack down on violent crime.

Levin added that the Texas crime rate is the lowest since 1993. He also noted that probationers pay dramatically more in restitution to victims than prisoners.

forced to resign

urged clinton impeachment p 312

scaife funded: Edwin Meese: Counsel to President, then Attorney General;Center for Criminal Justice Policy and Management, University of San Diego; Pacific Legal Foundation.

Ed Meese

AKA Edwin A. Meese III

Born: 2-Dec-1931

Birthplace: Oakland, CA

Gender: Male

Religion: Lutheran

Race or Ethnicity: White

Sexual orientation: Straight

Occupation: Government

Party Affiliation: Republican

Nationality: United States

Executive summary: Attorney General under Reagan, 1985-88

Military service: US Army (1954-56)

Father: Edwin Meese, Jr. (b. 1897, d. 21-Jun-1985)

Mother: Leone

Brother: Myron Meese

Brother: Clifford Meese

Brother: George Meese

Wife: Ursula Herrick Meese (one son, one daughter)

Son: Mike

Daughter: Dana

University: BA, Yale University (1953)

Law School: LLB, University of California at Berkeley (1958)

Teacher: University of California at Berkeley (1965-67)

Professor: University of San Diego (1977-80)

US Attorney General (1985-88)

Meese Commission

US National Security Council (1981-85)

Iraq Study Group

Admiral James J. Carey Foundation Board of Advisors

:{ American Civil **Rights** Union Board of Directors, Policy Board

American Council of Trustees and Alumni Board of Directors}:

:{America's Future Foundation Executive Council

Capital Research Center Director}:

Center for the Study of the Presidency Board of Trustees

:{ Christian Stewardship Ministries

Claremont Institute Scholar

Committee on the Present Danger}:

Constitutional Sources Project National Advisory Board

The Constitution Project Sentencing Initiative

Council for National Policy

Criminal Justice Legal Foundation Legal Advisory Committee

:{ Defenders of Property Rights Board of Advisors

Discovery Institute Adjunct Fellow}:

:{**Emergency** Committee to Defeat Al Gore

Emergency Committee to Stop Hillary Rodham Clinton

Federalist Society

Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment

The Heritage Foundation

Hoover Institution

Intercollegiate Studies Institute Board of Trustees}:

Institute for Contemporary Studies

Junior Statesmen Foundation Board of Trustees

**:{Landmark:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}::{ Legal Foundation:(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:**Vice President

Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund

Libby Legal Defense Trust Advisory Committee

Lighted Candle Society Board of Trustees

John O. Marsh Institute Honorary Member, Advisory Committee

**Mercatus Center**Board of Directors

National Conservative Campaign Fund Honorary Chairman

Nevada Policy Research Institute Board of Advisors

Pacific Justice Institute Advisory Board Chairman

Patrick Henry Center Board of Directors

Philadelphia Society Board of Trustees

Republican National Lawyers Association Advisory Council

Trinity Forum Board of Trustees

**Young America's Foundation**

Reagan Ranch Board of Governors

Texas Review of Law & Politics Board of Advisors

Group	Group Type	Years	Title	Compensation
American Civil Rights Union	Foundation	2006-2007
American Civil Rights Union	Foundation	2006	Director
American Civil Rights Union	Foundation	2007	Director
American Council of Trustees and Alumni	Foundation	2007-2009
American Council of Trustees and Alumni	Foundation	2007	Director
American Council of Trustees and Alumni	Foundation	2009	Director
Capital Research Center	Foundation	1998-2007
Capital Research Center	Foundation	1998	Director
Capital Research Center	Foundation	1999	Director
Capital Research Center	Foundation	2000	Director
Capital Research Center	Foundation	2001	Director
Capital Research Center	Foundation	2003	Director
Capital Research Center	Foundation	2004	Director
Capital Research Center	Foundation	2005	Director
Capital Research Center	Foundation	2006	Director
Capital Research Center	Foundation	2007	Director
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment FREE	Foundation	2005
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment FREE	Foundation	2005	Director
Heritage Foundation, The	Foundation	1998-2009
The Heritage Foundation	Foundation	1998		$240,400
The Heritage Foundation	Foundation	1999		$243,973
The Heritage Foundation	Foundation	2000	Trustee - Reagan Fellow	$249,685
The Heritage Foundation	Foundation	2001	Trustee - Reagan Fellow	$259,046
The Heritage Foundation	Foundation	2002	Vice President & Reagan Fellow	$271,400
The Heritage Foundation	Foundation	2003	Vice President & Reagan Fellow	$261,860
The Heritage Foundation	Foundation	2004	Vice President & Reagan Fellow	$274,648
The Heritage Foundation	Foundation	2009	Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and Chairman of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies
Intercollegiate Studies Institute	Foundation	2004-2009
Intercollegiate Studies Institute	Foundation	2004	Trustee
Intercollegiate Studies Institute	Foundation	2005	Trustee
Intercollegiate Studies Institute	Foundation	2009	Trustee
Landmark Legal Foundation	Foundation	1997-2007
Landmark Legal Foundation	Foundation	1997	Vice Chairman
Landmark Legal Foundation	Foundation	1998	Vice Chairman
Landmark Legal Foundation	Foundation	1999	Vice Chairman
Landmark Legal Foundation	Foundation	2001	Treasurer
Landmark Legal Foundation	Foundation	2002	Treasurer
Landmark Legal Foundation	Foundation	2003	Treasurer
Landmark Legal Foundation	Foundation	2004	Chairman
Landmark Legal Foundation	Foundation	2006	Vice Chairman
Landmark Legal Foundation	Foundation	2007	Vice Chairman
Mercatus Center	Foundation	2006-2008
Mercatus Center	Foundation	2006	Director
Mercatus Center	Foundation	2007	Director
Mercatus Center	Foundation	2008	Director
Southeastern Legal Foundation	Foundation	1999-2005

http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/people/Edwin_Ed_Meese

powerhouse

...

CBG?

"[Gray] was friends with the Reagans and all that, but he did not have a lot of contact with them," said Larry Speakes, Reagan's deputy press secretary in the early eighties. Ed Meese was a natural point of entry for the master of illusion.

Meese was the only one of Reagan's three top aides who was impressed by Gray. James Baker came from a rich, socially prominent family and had headed Gerald Ford's 1976 presidential campaign. He did not need any Washington introductions, either politically or socially. Michael Deaver, a skilled PR man himself, could see right through Gray's carefully crafted illusion of power and access. But Meese was new to Washington, had come with little money, and was vulnerable to offers of introductions to the "right" people, and to overtures of kindness and friendship during his times of trouble. He was just the type of person with whom Gray could ingratiate himself, and he had the kind of influence with Rea| gan that would make Gray's time and effort worthwhile.

The Meeses' financial difficulties were no secret. Meese's wife Ursula, The Washington Post wrote, "has worn borrowed evening clothes to fancy dinners because the family finances are tight." Gray knew an opportunity when he saw it; he had one of his clients create a job for Ursula. He convinced millionaire William Moss to create the William Moss Institute, a philanthropic foundation to poll Americans about their concerns for the future. It was associated with American University, another Gray client. Gray then recommended Ursula Meese for director of the institute at $40,000 a year, thereby increasing the Meese family income by about 66 percent. "Ursula Meese was hired only because she was married to the attorney general," a senior Gray and Company executive said. "I was there when she was hired and I remember the terms of the agreement and it was clear."

boho

Edwin Meese III served on the Council for National Policy (CNP) Executive Committee in 1994 and as CNP President in 1996. Meese was distinguished fellow and holder of the Ronald Reagan Chair in Public Policy, the Heritage Foundation; former Attorney General of the U.S. 1985-1988; Counselor to the President, 1981-1985; former Chief of Staff and Senior Issues Advisor for the Reagan-Bush Committee; former president, Council for National Policy; former professor of law, University of San Diego; former vice president for administration,

Rohr Industries. As Chairman of the Domestic Policy Council and the National Drug Policy Board, and as a member of the National Security Council, he played a key role in the development and execution of domestic and foreign policy.

During the 1970s, Mr. Meese was Director of the Center for Criminal Justice Policy and Management and Professor of Law at the University of San Diego. He earlier served as Chief of Staff for then-Governor Reagan and was a local prosecutor in California. Mr. Meese is a Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Institute of United States Studies, University of London.

He earned his B.A. from Yale University and his J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley. During the Reagan Kitchen Cabinet, Joseph Coorsand others from the Heritage Foundation received a letter of endorsement from White House Chief of Staff Ed Meese in which Meese promised Edward J. Feulner, Jr., the president of Heritage, that 'this Administration will cooperate fully with your efforts.' After leaving the Reagan administration, Meese joined the staff of the Heritage Foundation. Walsh's Iran/Contra Investigation Report, August 1993:

"Attorney General Edwin Meese III became directly involved in the Reagan Administration's secret plan to sell weapons to Iran in January 1986, when he was asked for a legal opinion to support the plan. When the secret arms sales became exposed in November 1986, raising questions of legality and prompting congressional and public scrutiny, Meese became the point man for the Reagan Administration's effort, in Meese's words, 'to limit the damage.'"