Writ Of Execution United States District Court: Fill & Download for Free

I really do not have anything to add to the answers you have been given but an example might be useful.In November 2014, the President announced his new immigration policy of forbearing from removing certain aliens from the country. Thereafter, the Secretary of Homeland Security issued a memorandum implementing this policy. Several states brought an action in the United States District Court for declaratory and injunctive relief against implementing the memorandum. The District Court entered a nationwide preliminary injunction against implementing the memorandum. The administration appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for a stay of the injunction. That appeal was denied. The administration then petitioned for and was granted a writ of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court which will now hear the case.The point to this is that the administration was at all times subject to and had available to it judicial process. The government does not act in a vacuum. Executive, congressional and judicial actions continually come up against legal constraints. A court may decide that a congressional statute is unconstitutional, that an executive action exceeds the legislative grant of authority under which it is taken or that a lower court has improperly applied the law. In appropriate circumstances claims against governmental action can be brought by the States, another branch of government or citizens themselves.It is really a remarkable process.

Abraham Lincoln, perhaps the United States’ most beloved president, widely adored for ushering the country through the trying times of the American Civil War and abolishing slavery……also suspended habeas corpus.Now, let’s lay the groundwork. First we’ll define what habeas corpus is, for anyone who isn’t aware. In the United States, when a person is arrested by the police on suspicion of a crime, a court can issue a writ of habeas corpus—a piece of paper which requires the arresting authority to either demonstrate ample cause for the arrest (say, by filing charges) or release the detainee.Second, let’s look and see where the state of Maryland is on a map, in relation to the northern and southern United States:Yup. Smack dab in the middle.April, 1861.[1] War had broken out between the Union in the north and the Confederacy in the south. Abraham Lincoln called for the northern states to send militia troops to Washington, D.C. Naturally, any troops coming from Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Maine, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, or Rhode Island had to pass through Maryland on their way to the nation’s capital. Quite a number of Marylanders were against the idea of making war on the South, and riots broke out. Mobs of angry Marylanders even attacked federal troop transports.A number of Maryland politicians were leery of war with the South. These included Thomas Hicks (the governor), George Brown (the mayor of Baltimore), and almost the entire Maryland state legislature. Fearful of further rioting and violence, the legislature voted against opening rail lines to the North. The legislature also officially petitioned President Lincoln to remove the growing numbers of federal troops piling up in their state. Lincoln refused. Governor Hicks and Mayor Brown then asked Lincoln to prevent the crossing of any more troops through Maryland. Lincoln again refused.Not long after this little incident, Lincoln asked Attorney General Edward Bates whether it would be possible to suspend habeas corpus.Edward BatesNow, I’ll grant you that Lincoln’s back was against the wall. Washington, D.C. is quite close to Virginia. The Confederate capital was in Virginia—Richmond, just a hundred miles south. Almost everything south of D.C. was Confederate territory—and the Confederate armies were massing for an attack, too. Lincoln had to get those troops to Washington. He had no time for pettifogging Maryland politicians obstructing the movement of his precious blue-clad soldiers.On April 27, 1861, Lincoln authorized Union troops to suspend habeas corpus if they encountered any resistance on the “military line” throughout Maryland.On April 29, the Maryland legislature voted against allowing federal troops to use Maryland as a highway to Washington. Governor Hicks then allegedly authorized the Maryland state militia to destroy several key railroad bridges that the Union was using to move its troops southward.Militia lieutenant John Merryman was arrested on May 25 for his role in destroying railroad bridges at the Bush and Gunpowder Rivers. He was charged with treason, taken to Fort McHenry in Baltimore, and there imprisoned.John MerrymanMerryman’s lawyers lost no time. They headed straight to Washington and barged into the offices of Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (and author of the infamous Dred Scott decision), demanding a writ of habeas corpus. Taney issued the writ the day after Merryman’s arrest, May 26. The writ ordered General George Cadwalader, the commander of the military district wherein Fort McHenry was located, to bring Merryman before Taney the next day, without fail.Roger B. TaneyGeneral Cadwalader sent one of his colonels to Justice Taney on May 27. The colonel bore a letter from Cadwalader explaining to Taney that, under orders from President Lincoln, the Federal Army had suspended habeas corpus in Maryland for the time being, that Merryman was being held for treason, doncha know, and for being illegally in possession of U.S. government arms, dude, and, like, advocating armed hostility against the federal government and all that jazz. Cadwalader advised Taney that these were dark and dangerous times, and it was perhaps better to err on the side of national security. Due to the complex nature of the issues at stake and the dire nature of the charges being leveled against Merryman, Cadwalader politely asked Taney for an extension so he (Cadwalader) could seek clarification from President Lincoln.George CadwaladerWell, one doesn’t just say “no” to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Taney fired back the 1861 equivalent of a “Oh hell NAW you didn’t” to Cadwalader. Then the incensed Taney went one step further: he held Cadwalader to be in contempt of court. Taney ordered a U.S. Marshal to arrest Cadwalader and haul his sorry carcass up in front of Taney the next day.The marshal dutifully knocked on the door of Fort McHenry on May 28, but the sentries refused to let him in. Rumor has it that Cadwalader, earlier that day, had received orders from U.S. Army headquarters telling him to keep holding Merryman at all costs, Chief Justice Taney be damned. Whether that’s true or not, Cadwalader had decided to stand his ground. He ordered his sentries to turn the marshal away.Taney filed a written opinion with the United States Circuit Court for the District of Maryland on June 1, 1861. In it, he put Lincoln on blast for bestowing unlimited power on himself. His wording was quite strong:These great and fundamental laws, which Congress itself could not suspend, have been disregarded and suspended, like the writ of habeas corpus, by a military order, supported by force of arms. Such is the case now before me, and I can only say that if the authority which the Constitution has confided to the judiciary department and judicial officers, may thus, upon any pretext or under any circumstances, be usurped by the military power, at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found.The crux of Taney’s argument was that only Congress, not the President, had the right to suspend habeas corpus, and then only in the most dire of circumstances.Now, technically, Lincoln hadn’t done anything wrong. Not according to the Constitution, anyway. As Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution says:The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.Lincoln clearly thought that habeas corpus was indeed a privilege and not a right, and it could be suspended if the public safety required it, and that in this particular case, the public safety most certainly did require it. And he resented Taney for putting up a stink.Lincoln defended his suspension of habeas corpus in a speech he gave to Congress on July 4, 1861, framing the question as he saw it: a choice between strict interpretation of constitutional law, or the dissolution of the Union.The whole of the laws which were required to be faithfully executed were being resisted and failing of execution in nearly one-third of the States. Must they be allowed to finally fail of execution, even had it been perfectly clear that by the use of the means necessary to their execution some single law, made in such extreme tenderness of the citizen's liberty that practically it relieves more of the guilty than of the innocent, should to a very limited extent be violated? To state the question more directly, Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the Government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated? Even in such a case, would not the official oath be broken if the Government should be overthrown when it was believed that disregarding the single law would tend to preserve it? But it was not believed that this question was presented. It was not believed that any law was violated. The provision of the Constitution that “the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it” is equivalent to a provision—is a provision—that such privilege may be suspended when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety does require it. It was decided that we have a case of rebellion and that the public safety does require the qualified suspension of the privilege of the writ which was authorized to be made. Now it is insisted that Congress, and not the Executive, is vested with this power; but the Constitution itself is silent as to which or who is to exercise the power; and as the provision was plainly made for a dangerous emergency, it can not be believed the framers of the instrument intended that in every case the danger should run its course until Congress could be called together, the very assembling of which might be prevented, as was intended in this case, by the rebellion.On July 10, a grand jury in Baltimore indicted Merryman for treason. The allegations were damning. Merryman was accused of “wickedly, maliciously, and traitorously” waging war upon the United States, with the assistance of 500 armed men. He was charged with destroying no fewer than six railroad bridges as well as telegraph lines, with the aim of hindering Union troops from crossing the state and severing their lines of communication. Merryman posted his $20,000 bail and was released, pending trial.But the case never came to trial. Since treason was punishable by death, it would have to be tried in a federal circuit court. At that time, Supreme Court justices also served as circuit court judges. There were only two federal judges for the U.S. Circuit Court in the District of Maryland: our good friend Roger B. Taney and another man named William F. Giles (who, interestingly enough, had had one of his own writs of habeas corpus ignored by William W. Morris, the commander of Fort McHenry, just a short time prior to the Merryman affair).But the vindictive Taney would have none of it. Though repeatedly asked to schedule hearings for the accused, Taney declined time and time again. Taney justified his obstructionism by proclaiming that neither Merryman nor anyone else who’d been indicted would get a fair trial in Maryland. (He also claimed his health was poor and this was a really bad time for him to be handing down orders from the bench, cough cough.) Taney resisted all attempts made by federal authorities to replace him and put enough pressure on Judge Giles to ensure that Giles wouldn’t hear the case by himself.This brouhaha dragged on for years. In 1864, Taney wrote: “I will not place the judicial power in this humiliating position nor consent to degrade and disgrace it, and if the district attorney presses the prosecutions I shall refuse to take them up.”Taney died in 1864, still bitter. For whatever reason, Salmon P. Chase, who became Chief Justice and circuit court judge for Maryland after Taney’s death, also refused to conduct any Merryman hearings.I’d love to be able to tie a neat bow around this story and wrap it up for you, but this is where it ends. Everything just sort of fizzled out. The war ended. Lincoln was assassinated. Merryman never saw the inside of a federal prison, let alone a gallows, and later became Maryland’s State Treasurer.But let’s stop and think about this for a moment. This is Abraham Lincoln we’re talking about. Freer of the slaves. Preserver of the Union. Savior of America. Inspirational leader, speaker, and writer. Millions of Americans’ favorite American.You can almost see the halo around his head.And yet, despite his sterling reputation as a lover of freedom, democracy, and unity, Lincoln somehow believed that he had the right to throw a man in jail indefinitely, without charges, representation, due process of law, trial, or possibility of parole. Because, in his sainted opinion, an abstract noun (“public safety”) was in jeopardy.Take a minute to let that sink in. The man who often gets the credit for freeing the slaves, the beneficent patriarch who preserved the Union and led the young United States through arguably what was its greatest moral, legal, and existential crisis, basically believed that he had the right to interpret the Constitution as he saw fit, tell the judiciary to go pound sand, and imprison anyone for any length of time during a national crisis. At his sole discretion.It’s really quite disturbing when you allow yourself to contemplate it.Footnotes[1] President Lincoln suspends the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War

Mueller and Congress both would attempt to obtain the interpreter’s testimony by a subpoena directed to him.I. Issuance of a subpoena (a court order to testify or produce documents, or both).A subpoena is an order from an authority having power to compel compliance to an individual, directing that the individual attend at the specified time and place and either testify or produce documents or both.I.a. Session’s recusal.Mueller is a federal (special) prosecutor. He has considerable autonomy but ultimately operates within the confines of the Justice Department. The U.S. Attorney General is his direct superior.When Sessions was installed as attorney general, he recused himself from any supervisory capacity over Mueller and Mueller’s investigation because he, Sessions, met with the Russian ambassador during the 2016 campaign. He had a conflict of interest. He was potentially involved as a target of or person of interest to Mueller’s investigation. As attorney general, he would have been charged with overseeing the investigator’s conduct of the investigation. He could not be suffered both to be a person being investigated and to be the person in charge of the investigation.Sessions recused himself, much to Trump’s dismay and displeasure, and put the number two man at the Justice Department, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, in charge. Rosenstein was then Mueller’s direct superior and Sessions had no role to play. Of course, both Rosenstein and Sessions had a boss, namely Trump.I.b. Permission to apply to the court for a subpoena.When Mueller wants to compel someone to testify or produce documents over that person’s objection, he is said to issue a subpoena to the person. But that is not quite what happens. The prosecutor, Mueller, has neither the legal authority nor the power to compel a person’s attendance. It is the court in whose jurisdiction the investigation is being conducted that has the legal authority and physical power to compel another to testify. It is from the court that the subpoena emanates; it is the court’s order, not the prosecutor’s.Of necessity, then, a prosecutor must apply to the court for a subpoena. In Mueller’s case, his superior at Justice has the authority to stop him from applying in any given instance. That was Rosenstein as long as Sessions was attorney general. Acting Attorney General Whitaker has at least asserted his right to take supervision of Mueller’s investigation back from Rosenstein, although whether he has in fact involved himself in the day to day supervision of Mueller is not apparent. When Trump’s attorney general nominee Barr is confirmed, he is expected to assume control personally. Rosenstein has said he will leave the Department.So, were Mueller to want to compel Trump’s interpreter to testify, he would need permission from either Whitaker or Barr to apply to the court for a subpoena. The first part of the answer to your question can Mueller subpoena the interpreter is only if his superior at Justice lets him apply to the court.I.c. Application to and Issuance by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.The court in whose jurisdiction the investigation is occurring is the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Assuming Mueller were to be allowed to, his first step would be to apply to the court for a subpoena directed to the interpreter.II. Executive Privilege.In any investigation other than one in which an employee of the Executive Branch is the target, that would be a straight forward application, and its granting would likely be routine. But where the target is the president himself or a close advisor, or another important person in his employ, the issue of executive privilege arises.In short, executive privilege is the privilege of the president, in certain circumstances, to refuse to submit to the court’s order (subpoena) and to get away with it.Executive privilege is the president’s lawful authority, under certain circumstances, to resist certain subpoenas and other judicial branch interventions into the business of the executive.[1] (2 Jan. 2019, accessed 2019.01.13)The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon in the context of a subpoena emanating from the judiciary …. The Court held that there is a qualified privilege, which once invoked, creates a presumption of privilege, and the party seeking the [information] must then make a ‘sufficient showing’ that the ‘Presidential material’ is ‘essential to the justice of the case.’ [The Court] further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns. Ibid.In the case of a subpoena to the interpreter, the information being sought is the president’s personal conversation with a foreign head of state. The president kept everyone out of that meeting except his interpreter, Putin, and Putin’s interpreter.II.a. Presidential Assertion of the Privilege.He was apparently very concerned to keep that conversation secret. He has gone to “extraordinary lengths” to keep the record of that conversation out of the hands of even his closest advisors. He went so far as to confiscate the interpreter’s notes and order the interpreter to discuss the conversation with no one.[2] (13 Jan. 2019, accessed 2019.01.13)If Mueller were to obtain a subpoena from the District Court compelling the interpreter to testify as to the conversation, Trump would most assuredly interpose executive privilege to prevent enforcement of the subpoena.So, the question of whether Mueller could subpoena the interpreter and compel his testimony would turn on whether the circumstances warrant breaching the president’s executive privilege.II.b. Rebuttable Presumption of PrivilegeOnce the president asserted the privilege, a rebuttable presumption would arise that the privilege was lawfully and correctly invoked. The burden to rebut the privilege would fall to Mueller. He would have to make a specific and “sufficient” evidentiary showing that the content of the conversation is “essential to the justice” of the investigation.Whether Mueller’s showing was sufficient and essential would be issues on which the District Court would initially rule. Assuming that it found that Mueller’s showing was sufficient to rebut the privilege, it would then issue an order enforcing the subpoena. The president would appeal that order to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Assuming it upheld the District Court’s order, the president would then petition the Supreme Court for permission to bring an appeal before it.II.c. Petition to the Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari.The Supreme Court has plenary, discretionary control of its docket. There is no “right” of appeal to it. Rather, one must petition the Court for a Writ of Certiorari which is the Court’s order to the lower court to transmit the case to it. Whether the Court grants the petition is entirely within the Court’s sole discretion.Were it to deny the petition, the order of the D.C. Circuit Court would be final. Were it to grant the petition, then the case would be briefed and argued before the Court which would issue its opinion and order either affirming or reversing the D.C. Circuit.II.d. The Courts are the Final Arbiters of Whether the Privilege Will Prevail.So, the executive (president) gets to assert the privilege against the court’s order, but it is the courts themselves that are the final arbiters of whether the privilege will stand or fall. In the case of a congressional subpoena, the process and law are the same.III. Congressional Subpoena.Congress is an authority with lawful power to compel testimony and the production of documents. A committee of Congress would determine whether to issue a subpoena. If it did, and if the president asserted the privilege, then the issue of whether the subpoena could be enforced would be brought in the D.C. District Court. The same legal arguments and standards would apply. The same process would apply. Presumably, the Supreme Court would, in due course, decide the issue, either upholding or quashing the subpoena.Of course, in either instance, the District Court could determine not to issue a subpoena, or, having issued one, to quash it. The same appeals process and legal questions and standards would apply.IV. Would the District Court Enforce Such a Subpoena in this Case?This issue is beyond the strict scope of the OP’s question. However, it is implied. Further, in his answer, John Ellingson directly raised the issue, incorrectly stating that the president is totally exempt from subpoena enforcement. In a reply to my comment, he stated that United States v. Nixon so held. Mr. Ellingson is incorrect on both counts. Considering all this, I have decided to address the issue.In my comment to Mr. Ellingson’s answer, I stated that the courts have power through the U.S. Marshals to enforce its subpoenas. In his reply, Ellingson incorrectly flatly stated that the president is totally exempt from enforcement of a subpoena directed to him. In my reply, I countered that. I reproduce here the content of that reply,IV.a. The District Court Has Power to Enforce Such a Subpoena.Mueller’s office has no power to enforce a subpoena to the interpreter. But that’s because it would not be his subpoena in the first place, The subpoena would be issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.A subpoena is a writ (an order) issued by a court directing a witness to appear. It is the court, not the prosecutor, that has the authority to issue the writ. It is to the court that one must look for the power to enforce the writ.The United States Courts are not without power to enforce their orders against non-compliant actors. The United States Marshals Service is the police arm of the federal courts.“It is the primary … mission of the United States Marshals Service to … execute, and enforce all orders of the United States District Courts, the United States Courts of Appeals, [and certain other federal courts.]” 28 U.S. Code § 566 (a) - U.S. Marshals Service Powers and duties (undated, accessed 2019.01.19)To that end, the Marshalsshall execute all lawful writs, process, and orders issued under the authority of the United States, and shall command all necessary assistance to execute its duties.” Id., subsection (c).The “command all necessary assistance” provision gives the Marshals authority to deputize any civilians at hand as deputy marshals, i.e., form a posse.The Marshals are the nation’s oldest law enforcement arm, authorized by the First Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789. On September 24, 1789, President Washington swore in the first thirteen U.S. Marshals. The Marshals have been enforcing the U.S. Courts’ orders ever since:During the Pulman Strike in 1894, federal courts ordered the U.S. Marshals to keep the railroads running.From 1960 - 1965, the U.S. Marshals enforced federal court orders integrating southern schools. “After riots erupted over James Meredith's enrollment at Ole Miss in 1962, teams of deputies protected him 24 hours a day for an entire year. In a similar circumstance, Ruby Bridges was also provided U.S. Marshals protection when she was one of the first students to integrate the New Orleans public schools.” U.S. Marshals Service, History, Timeline (undated, accessed 2019.01.19).In 1979, the Marshals took responsibility for executing the federal courts’s arrest warrants, thus establishing the fugitive apprehension program.The Marshals’ are the U.S. Courts’ enforcement arm. It would be they who would find and arrest the interpreter and haul him into courtIV.b. Trump’s Probable Assertion of Executive Privilege Might Fall To An Argument of Paramount Necessity of Mueler and Congress to Know.Trump would likely assert executive privilege and rely on a holding in United States v. Nixon concerning presidential conversations involving “military or diplomatic secrets.United States v. Nixon did not hold that the President is exempt from subpoena. It unanimously held just the opposite.In Nixon, the subpoena was for tape recordings of presidential conversations in the Oval Office. The OP asks about the testimony of the interpreter concerning presidential conversations with Putin.The only relevant difference is that in Nixon, the conversations were with Executive Branch employees, particularly Haldeman, Nixon’s chief of staff. In the OP’s question, the conversations were with another head of state.Nixon held that where special prosecutor Jaworski had proven a “sufficient likelihood that each of the tapes contain[ed] conversations relevant to the offenses charged in the indictment,” Nixon enjoyed no executive privilege to prevent enforcement of the subpoena. The Court did not quash the subpoena, but instead ordered Nixon to obey. decision - United States v. Nixon | Wikiwand (15 Jan. 2019, accessed 2019.01.20).The District Court does have power to enforce such a subpoena against the interpreter should he refuse to appear. The U.S. marshals would grab his ass and haul it into court.If the interpreter asserted executive privilege, the issue would be whether, in this instance, the privilege prevented enforcement.That would be the point at which the difference between Nixon and this case would come into play. As part of his holding in Nixon, Chief Justice Burger explicitly noted that Nixon’s “claim is based, not on the ground that military or diplomatic secrets are implicated, but merely on the ground of a generalized interest in confidentiality.” Ibid.In this case, the President would argue that diplomatic secrets and national security are implicated.The District Court might be persuaded that given the diplomatic and national security implications, Nixon does not prevent a holding that the privilege prevents enforcement of the subpoena.IV.b. The particular circumstances here make this case sui generis. The privilege might fall to Mueller’s or Congress’ specific need to know.Trump’s possible treason by colluding with the Russians not only during his campaign but also during his presidency as well as whether his conduct is otherwise grounds for impeachment argue against an assertion of executive privilege. In these sui generis circumstances, the prosecutor’s and Congress’ need to know might out-trump Trump’s executive privilege.The OP’s question raises two issues, each of which has two sub-issues.Will executive privilege defeat a congressional subpoena of the interpreter to obtain his testimony as to Trump’s conversation with Putin?The subpoena is issued pursuant to Congress’ general investigatory powers.The subpoena is issued pursuant to Congress specific impeachment power.Will executive privilege defeat a subpoena by Special Prosecutor Mueller of the interpreter to obtain his testimony as to Trump’s conversation with Putin?The subpoena is issued pursuant to Mueller’s general investigatory duties.The subpoena is issued pursuant to Mueller’s prosecutorial duties for use in a specific criminal prosecution.In Nixon, the Court held that[a]bsent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets,(United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) p. 706 (undated, accessed 2019.01.21))the President'sgeneralized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.Id., 418 U.S. 713.Here, Trump would assert the privilege as to the conversation between him and a foreign head of state. He would claim that the privilege must prevail over any attempt to compromise the privacy of such conversations as it would otherwise unduly impinge upon his constitutional power to conduct foreign policy. He would claim that the conversation encompassed diplomatic and national security matters that he had sole discretion to keep secret or to divulge.In discussing evidentiary privileges in general, the Court noted thatthese exceptions [(privileges)] to the demand for every man's evidence are not lightly created nor expansively construed, for they are in derogation of the search for truth.Id., 418 U.S. 710.Congress or Mueller would have to argue that, likewise, the executive privilege should not be expansively construed.In determining how expansively or narrowly to construe executive privilege, the District Court would have to weigh the necessity to protect the president’s power to conduct foreign policy against the necessityto advance Congress’ general investigatory power,to advance Congress’ specific impeachment power,to advance Mueller’s general duty to investigateRussian corruption of the 2016 election process in general, and any other crimes he discovers in that effort, andcollusion between Trump or his campaign and Russia to affect the election outcome specifically, andto advance Mueller’s ability to obtain relevant inculpatory evidence in an extant criminal case.Where that balance would lie would be influenced by the particular and unique circumstances in this case.Edit:2019.01.21Added item IV.b2019.01.20Added item IV & IV.a.Q:Can the Mueller team subpoena the president's interpreter to find out what Trump and Putin discussed at their private meetings? Can Congress do it?Footnotes[1] Executive privilege | Wikiwand[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html?utm_term=.29f4c42f7d0f