Mattis, which suggest a different approach in dealing with Iran.’”’ In a speech in April 2016 at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Mattis said “there is no going back” on the deal “absent a clear and present violation.”’* Second, other signatories to the deal, including Russia and China

s through their confirmation hearings,” he said of the business-and-military 1950s-type cabinet choices. “Tillerson is two days, Session is two days, Mattis is two days... .” Bannon veered from “Mad Dog” Mattis—the retired four-star general whom Trump had nominated as secretary of defense—to a long riff

Work%20-%20Background%20and%20Implications%20for%20US_final _O.pdf. 7 Information from a participant on one trip to China arranged by Jimmy Wong. 8 Mattis, Peter. “Contrasting China and Russia’s Influence Operations.” War on the Rocks. January 2018. https://warontherocks.com/2018/01/contrasting-chinas-r

is into action to tell the president that American soldiers would not be paid the next day if he didn't sign the bill. This was a repeat performance: Mattis had issued a similar warning during a threatened shutdown in January. “Never... never... never... again; Trump shouted, pounding the desk after each

ting rid of powell much more important than syria /mattis. . I guess pompeo, only one left. . unless ambass

ting rid of powell much more important than syria /mattis. . I guess pompeo, only one left. . unless ambass

favoring detention does not disappear entirely, but remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court." United States v. Mattis, 963 F.3d 285, 290-91 (2d Cir. 2020). After a court has made an initial determination that no conditions of release can reasonably assure the appea

United States v. Karni, 298 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D.D.C. 2004) 16 United States v. Kashoggi, 717 F. Supp. 1048 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) 16 United States v. Mattis, No. 20-1713, 2020 WL 3536277 (2d Cir. June 30, 2020) 10 United States v. Moscaritolo, No. 10 Cr. 4 (JL), 2010 WL 309679 (D.N.H. Jan. 26, 2010)

favoring detention does not disappear entirely, but remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court." United States v. Mattis, 963 F.3d 285, 290-91 (2d Cir. 2020). III. Discussion The Defendant bases her third motion for bail on the Court's inherent powers to review its