CONYERS: Statement On Oversight Of The U.S. Department Of Justice Hearing With Attorney General Jeff Sessions

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the ordinary course of business, any one of a dozen topics related to the Department of Justice would be worthy of its own hearing.

And, to be clear, I would rather spend our time today discussing the upkeep of the criminal justice system, the enforcement of civil rights, and the work we must all do to ensure access to the ballot box.

Instead, we must spend our time debating the troubles of a wayward Administration: how the Attorney General conducts himself before Congress, how President Trump undermines the integrity of the justice system, and how the Department continues to ignore the oversight requests of this Committee.

Although this is the Attorney General’s first appearance before the House, he has already made three visits to our colleagues in the Senate.

At his confirmation hearing, he testified that he “did not have communications with the Russians.” 

Last month, he testified that “a continuing exchange of information between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government . . . did not happen, at least to my knowledge, and not with me.”

We know now, of course, that neither of those statements is true.

Shortly after the Attorney General made the first comment, the Washington Post reported that he met with the Russian Ambassador at least twice during the campaign.

In the past month, we have also learned that the Attorney General must have been very much aware of a continuing exchange of information between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. 

In charging documents unsealed last month, George Papadopoulos—a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign—admits to extensive communications with Russian contacts.

At a March 31, 2016 meeting of the campaign’s National Security Advisory Committee—attended by candidate Trump, and chaired by Senator Sessions—Mr. Papadopoulos stated, “in sum and substance, that he had connections that could help arrange a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President Putin.”

It does not matter, as has been reported, that the Attorney General remembers this meeting after the fact—remembers it so vividly, in fact, that two unnamed sources say the Senator “shut George down.”

Under oath, knowing in advance that he would be asked about this subject, the Attorney General gave answers that were, at best, incomplete.

I hope the Attorney General can provide some clarification on this problem in his remarks today. I also hope that he can assure us that the Department is weathering near-daily attacks on its independence by President Trump—and that no office of the Department is being used to pressure the President’s political enemies.

In recent months, President Trump has attacked the “beleaguered” Attorney General, and criticized his “VERY weak position on Hillary Clinton crimes.”

The President has talked openly about firing the leadership of the Department—including the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the former Acting Director of the FBI, and Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

He did fire former FBI Director Comey—in his own words, “because of that Russia thing with Trump and Russia”—as well as acting Attorney General Sally Yates and all 46 sitting U.S. Attorneys.

Last year, he denigrated a federal judge because of his “Mexican heritage.”

Judge Curiel was born in Indiana, by the way.

Last month, in a radio interview, President Trump said he was “very unhappy” with the Justice Department. 

Hours later, he proclaimed the military justice system “a complete and total disgrace.”

But the one that sticks with me is the President’s July interview with the New York Times.

In that interview, he begins by, once again, attacking the Attorney General’s credibility. “Sessions never should have recused himself,” the President complains.

Then the conversation takes a sinister turn: “When Nixon came along . . . out of courtesy, the FBI started reporting to the Department of Justice.

But the FBI person really reports directly to the president of the United States.”

He goes on: “I could have ended [the Flynn investigation] just by saying—they say it can’t be obstruction because you can say, ‘It’s ended. It’s over. Period.’”

As is often the case, the President requires some correction.

The Director of the FBI reports directly to the Attorney General, and has since the founding of the Bureau.

It can be obstruction of justice, if the President orders an investigation closed with a corrupt motive.

But what strikes me about these comments is the President’s view that the criminal justice system serves him—and not the public.

President Trump seems to believe that, on a whim, he can bring pressure to bear on his enemies, dismiss charges against his allies, and insulate himself and his family from any consequence. I cannot overemphasize the danger this perspective poses to our republic.

I have served on this Committee long enough to remember another President who shared this view. I was, myself, on Richard Nixon’s enemies list.

And although we worked to hold that Administration accountable, our work is not complete.

We must all remember our common responsibility to prevent that kind of abuse from happening again. I will look to the Attorney General’s partnership in this effort—but I have begun to worry about his resolve.

Last night, in a letter sent by the Department to Chairman Goodlatte—without so much as a copy to the Ranking Member, by the way—the Assistant Attorney General seems to leave the door open to appointing a new special counsel to cater to the President’s political needs.

The fact that this letter was sent to the Majority, without the customary and appropriate notice to me, indicates that the charge given to Department officials to evaluate these issues has political motivations.

Now, in his own words, the Attorney General is recused “from any questions involving . . . investigations that involve Secretary Clinton.”

Further, we cannot refer an investigation to a second special counsel if we lack the evidence to predicate a criminal investigation in the first place.

Virtually every Clinton-related matter that President Trump complains about has been well-litigated, carefully examined, and completely debunked.

Still, to quote former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, “putting political opponents in jail for offenses committed in a political setting . . . is something that we don’t do here.”

The threat alone resembles, in his words, “a banana republic.”

Finally, there is the matter of routine oversight between hearings.

In the recent history of this Committee, new attorneys general usually come to see us within two or three months of taking office.

No attorney general in recent memory has taken more than six months before making an appearance here.

Attorney General Sessions has broken that norm—he has had more than ten months to settle in—making our communications with the Department between hearings that much more important.

To date, my colleagues and I have sent more than forty letters to the Trump Administration asking for information necessary to carry out our oversight responsibilities.

We have sent more than a dozen of these letters directly to the Attorney General. To date, we have not received a single substantive response.

We can disagree on matters of policy, Mr. Attorney General—but you cannot keep us in the dark forever.

When we make a reasonable oversight request, we expect you to reply in a prompt and responsive manner. I hope you can explain why your Department has chosen to ignore these letters.

More importantly, I hope that you will be more forthcoming with your answers—both in your testimony today and in the weeks to come.

I look forward to your testimony, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS To Ask For Full Accounting Of Pending U.S. Attorney/& Related Entitites

Detroit, MI - On March 10, 2017, the Trump Justice Department asked every sitting U.S. Attorney for their resignation.  Today, the Trump Administration fired Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the  Southern  District of New York.  Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee issued the following statement:

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“I am deeply disturbed by the Trump Administration's decision to terminate all sitting U.S. Attorneys.  The Trump Administration--including former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and others--has been enveloped by myriad conflicts of interest, and allegations of improper if not unlawful contacts involving the Russian government.  The Attorney General himself is enmeshed in scandal resulting from his own inaccurate testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“It is particularly problematic that the Administration would fire Mr. Bharara, the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, who President Trump himself had previously asked to continue in his position--particularly given that Mr. Bharara could be reviewing a range of potential improper activity emanating from Trump Tower and the Trump Campaign, as well as entities with financial ties to the President or the Trump Organization.  Similarly, every Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee recently asked Channing Phillips, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, to investigate whether Attorney General Sessions’ misstatements before the Senate Judiciary Committee may have constituted the federal crimes of lying to Congress or perjury.

“I am asking the Trump Justice Department to provide the House Judiciary Committee with a summary of any and all pending investigations involving members of the Trump Administration, the Trump Transition, the Trump Campaign, and the Trump Organization,  so that we can understand the full implications of this weekend’s firings.”

Preet Bharara Is Fired After Refusing to Step Down as U.S. Attorney

Preet Bharara, the Manhattan federal prosecutor who was asked by President Trump to remain in his post shortly after the election, was fired on Saturday after he refused an order to submit his resignation.

Mr. Bharara’s dismissal capped a brief but highly unusual showdown in which a political appointee installed by Mr. Trump’s predecessor, President Barack Obama, declined an order to submit a resignation.

He told the world what had happened on Twitter.

“I did not resign. Moments ago I was fired. Being the US Attorney in SDNY will forever be the greatest honor of my professional life,” Mr. Bharara wrote on his personal feed, which he set up in the past two weeks.

Mr. Bharara was among 46 holdover Obama appointees who were called by the acting deputy attorney general on Friday and told to immediately submit their resignations and plan to clear out of their offices.

But Mr. Bharara, who was called to Trump Tower for a meeting with the incoming president in late November, declined to do so.

Mr. Bharara’s office is overseeing a pending case against former close aides and associates of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and an inquiry into people close to Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City, who has been a target of Mr. Trump’s ire as he has positioned himself as a vocal opponent of the president’s on the left.

The announcement that Mr. Bharara had been told to resign created feelings of whiplash inside his office, according to two people familiar with the views of current prosecutors. One of the people described an oddly subdued reaction mixed with anxiety as the events unfolded. “You have a sense of how it’s going to end and it’s not going to end well,” this person said.

In November, Mr. Bharara met at Trump Tower with the president-elect and several of his advisers, including Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, according to two people briefed on that discussion who requested anonymity to describe a private meeting with Mr. Trump.

At the meeting, according to those briefed, Mr. Trump urged Mr. Bharara to remain in the job. Mr. Bharara said after the meeting, “I agreed to stay on.”

Mr. Bharara’s dismissal came about a year into his office’s investigation of Mr. de Blasio’s campaign fund-raising, an inquiry that is examining whether the mayor or his aides traded beneficial acts for political donations. And Mr. Bharara leaves his post at a sensitive juncture: Mr. de Blasio was interviewed recently by prosecutors who appeared to be in the final stages of determining whether to seek charges in the matter.

There is little precedent for Mr. Bharara’s refusal to resign; President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush also dismissed holdover political appointees in the Justice Department.

But the hasty nature of the dismissals, combined with Mr. Trump’s previous request of Mr. Bharara that he stay on, made this an unusual episode.

It was unclear how many of the 46 holdovers had submitted resignations. By way of contrast, Mr. Bharara’s colleague Robert L. Capers, the United States attorney in Brooklyn, announced his resignation on Friday afternoon.

The White House has said little about the timing of the mass push for resignations, other than insisting it was not a response to a call for a purge that Mr. Trump saw on Fox News, where one host, Sean Hannity, urged the president to clean house at the Justice Department.

Two White House officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the promise to keep Mr. Bharara on was a product of a chaotic transition process and Mr. Trump’s desire at the time to try to work with Senator Chuck Schumer, with whom Mr. Bharara is close. The relationship between Mr. Trump and Mr. Schumer, the Senate minority leader, has since soured.

Phil Singer, a former aide to Mr. Schumer and a Democratic strategist, called it “absurd” to suggest that Mr. Bharara’s firing was meant to punish Mr. Schumer.

But Mr. Trump has felt under siege over leaks springing from the vast federal bureaucracy he now oversees, and White House officials said that removing Mr. Bharara and the others was meant as a first step toward purging Obama appointees.

Before Mr. Bharara was fired on Saturday, one of New York’s top elected Republicans expressed support for him.

“Good for Preet, he is doing the job he was appointed to do!” Assemblyman Brian M. Kolb, the State Assembly minority leader, wrote on Twitter.

Assemblyman Steven F. McLaughlin, a Republican who was fond of calling for “draining the swamp” in Albany long before Mr. Trump embraced that expression, had urged Mr. Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reconsider on Friday.

“Big mistake,” he wrote on Twitter.

The Southern District of New York, which Mr. Bharara has overseen since 2009, encompasses Manhattan, Mr. Trump’s home before he was elected president, as well as the Bronx, Westchester, and other counties north of New York City.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Read the Scathing 1986 Letter Coretta Scott King Wrote Opposing Sessions’ Federal Nomination

Coretta Scott King’s nine-page letter blasted Jeff Sessions' nomination to be a federal judge, saying that the then-U.S. attorney’s “politically-motivated voting-fraud prosecutions to his indifference toward criminal violations of civil rights law, indicates that he lacks the temperament, fairness and judgment to be a federal judge.”

Coretta Scott King Letter and Testimony on Nomination of Jeff Sessions 1986 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

http://www.theroot.com/articles/news/2017/01/read-the-scathing-1986-letter-coretta-scott-king-wrote-opposing-jeff-sessions-federal-nomination/

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS STATEMENT ON GRASSLEY TREATMENT OF CBC MEMBERS TESTIFYING AT SESSIONS HEARING TODAY

Washington, DC – Today, U.S. Senator Cory Booker, civil rights icon Congressman John Lewis and Congressional Black Caucus Chair Congressman Cedric Richmond will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in opposition to Senator Jeff Sessions’ nomination for U.S. Attorney General. These Members are being required to testify as part of a third joint panel with non-Members of Congress and must sit through the hearing until the panel starts. After calling Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley yesterday, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr., the current longest serving Member of Congress and co-founder of the Congressional Black Caucus, today issued the following statement in regards to the lack of courtesy typically afforded to Members of Congress who testify at hearings:

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“As the Dean of the House, former Committee Chairman and a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus, I reject the lack of comity and respect afforded to my Congressional Black Caucus colleagues who will testify in opposition to Senator Sessions during his confirmation hearing. Booker, Lewis and Richmond are being required to testify with non-Members of Congress, and remain seated during the hearing for an indefinite period of time before offering their testimony during the last panel of the hearing. 

“In the past, both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have had a relationship based upon mutual respect and courtesy. What is set to take place today strongly deviates from the high level of cooperation we’ve always bestowed one another as colleagues in the United States Congress. I urge Chairman Grassley to reconsider the tone he is setting from this moment forward. As very busy Members of Congress with packed schedules, I believe Senator Booker, and Representatives Lewis and Richmond should have been able to provide their testimony on a member-only panel at the start of the hearing.”

Testimony begins at 3:38:24 Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. “Oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice”

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Thank you, Madam Attorney General, for being with us today. 

The news of the past few days has been full of questions about violence, civil rights, and the safety of our police officers—and I want you to know that we take seriously the burden of each of these questions on your office.

It will not have escaped your attention that we are in the middle of election season.  You may also know that there are just three working days left until we break for the summer—and, really, not much more time after that until the Congress ends.

Elections are about choices.  And a short working schedule is about setting priorities.

As you are no doubt aware, one of this Committee’s top legislative priorities is criminal justice reform.  We have already found consensus on a range of such issues, including sentencing, prison, and asset forfeiture reform. 

The Chairman and I also stand on the precipice of an agreement on policing reform legislation.  Given the events of the past week, the need for this measure has never been more urgent.

Questions about the use of lethal force by police are not new, but the nation is newly engaged in the issue after Ferguson, Staten Island, Cleveland, North Charleston, and Baltimore. 

Over the past week, we saw the same sad themes play out in Baton Rouge and Minnesota—as well as in the horrific killing of five police officers in Dallas.

I believe it is more critical than ever that we reach a final agreement on police accountability and standards. 

At a time when African Americans are 30% more likely than whites to be pulled over while driving, more than three times more likely to have their car searched, and more than twice as likely to be shot by the police, it is imperative that we restore public faith in our criminal justice system. 

We must finish this work, for both the communities that feel so much anguish this week, and for the officers who patrol our streets every day.  It is my sincere hope that we consider this matter before we adjourn.

Unfortunately, there are many other areas where we have not been able to advance bipartisan initiatives.

I would like to tell you that we are prepared to have a substantive discussion about the manner in which we will restore Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  The preclearance mechanism was used for decades by your Department to restore a sense of fairness in jurisdictions that have known prejudice for generations.  Since it was struck down, we have seen at least 17 states enact measures designed to restrict access to the ballot box.

           

Bipartisan legislation has been introduced that would have restored this vital tool long before voting began this year. But Mr. Sensenbrenner’s legislation sits untouched.

I would also like to tell you that we are prepared to address the scourge of gun violence in this country. 

The events last week in Baton Rouge, in Minnesota, and in Dallas—and the anger and sadness felt in communities across the nation—are what one commentator aptly called “the horrific, predictable result of a widely armed citizenry.”

This epidemic claims nearly 33,000 individuals every year.  It infects our churches, our schools, and our homes.  It places our police officers into the direct line of fire.  It makes our citizens afraid.

But we have not held a single hearing on this topic —not when 26 children and teachers were murdered at Sandy Hook, not when our colleague was shot in Phoenix, and not when the body count reached 49 in Orlando.

Last month, every Democratic member of this Committee wrote to Chairman Goodlatte with a list of specific policy proposals to address this violence.  To date, we have received no response. 

I would also like to tell you, Madam Attorney General, that we have an answer for the millions of undocumented immigrants who came here in search of a better life, but who are forced to live in the shadows. 

Some of us have put a great deal of effort into antagonizing and vilifying that community—but this Committee has offered very few solutions acknowledging that these families are here to stay. 

But elections are about choices, Madam Attorney General.  There are only three working days left this month—and then we adjourn for seven weeks. 

How will my colleagues on the other side of the aisle choose to fill that time?  Today, apparently, Secretary Hillary Clinton’s email takes precedence over gun violence and civil rights.

           

Let us be clear: the criminal investigation is closed.  There was no intentional wrongdoing.  Director Comey—whose reputation for independence and integrity is unquestioned—has explained his reasoning in great detail. 

If any of my colleagues are not yet convinced, it is because they do not want to be convinced.  And in their zeal to call Secretary Clinton a liar or a criminal—despite the facts and despite the law—I fear they will have missed an opportunity to engage with you on more worthy subjects.

We may also spend time today talking about the alleged wrongdoings of Commissioner Koskinen of the Internal Revenue Service.  Some of my colleagues want to use one of the remaining working days before the break to move his impeachment directly to the House floor. 

In many ways, this gesture is totally meaningless.  There is bipartisan consensus that the Commissioner’s critics have not proved their case, and there is virtually no chance of a conviction in the Senate.

But I believe that the rush to impeachment, although ineffectual, would set a dangerous precedent for the Congress and the American people. 

Once we cross this line, we write a new rule: whatever the merits of the charges, the House may impeach an official without due process—without the right to counsel, without the right to present evidence to this Committee, and without the right question the evidence presented against him.

Elections are about choices, Madam Attorney General, and here is the choice we face as the clock runs down on the 114^thCongress:

We can spend the few days that remain on conspiracy theories and political sniping that does little for our constituents but drive them further apart from their neighbors.

Or we can attempt to solve even one of the long list of problems that face this country today.

We should choose to do the work we were sent here to do—or the public is right to choose somebody else to do it.

I look forward to our conversation today, Attorney General Lynch.  I thank the Chairman, and I yield back.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONGRESSMAN CONYERS APPLAUDS THE CONFIRMATION OF LORETTA LYNCH AS NEXT U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL

WASHINGTON – Today, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) released the following statement after the U.S. Senate confirmed Loretta Lynch, currently the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, to be the next U.S. Attorney General of the Department of Justice by 56 – 43 vote:

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“Despite an unprecedented delay, I am relieved that Senate Republicans were able to resolve their differences and prioritize the confirmation of Loretta Lynch as our first female African American Attorney General.  Our outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder has done tremendous work during his extensive tenure and his tenacity will be missed.  I am confident Ms. Lynch will assume the role seamlessly and get right to work.  The Department of Justice will be in good hands under her sturdy leadership and I look forward to working with her on critical issues that are impacting the nation.”

Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) is the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee which has jurisdiction over protecting constitutional freedoms and civil liberties, oversight of the U.S. Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, legal and regulatory reform, innovation, competition and anti-trust laws, terrorism, crime and immigration reform.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS STATEMENT ON NOMINATION OF LORETTA LYNCH AS ATTORNEY GENERAL

Washington, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. released the following statement today on President Obama’s nomination of U.S. Attorney Loretta E. Lynch, Eastern District of New York, to serve as the next Attorney General of the United States:

U.S. Representative
John Conyers, Jr.

“Loretta Lynch is an accomplished and committed public servant who has proven that she can withstand various challenges in the pursuit of justice.  As a federal prosecutor from the Eastern District of New York, Lynch has worked hard to crack down on political corruption and terrorism.  As America continues its struggles to protect and expand civil rights for all, I am confident Ms. Lynch will bring a fresh perspective in securing voting rights, addressing over-criminalization and improving the criminal justice system as a whole.

“President Obama’s nomination of Ms. Lynch to be our next Attorney General would make her a dynamic addition to his diverse and distinguished cabinet.  Once confirmed, Ms. Lynch would continue the legacy left behind by our current Attorney General Holder, as the first African-American woman to hold the position. 

“I encourage the Senate to confirm Ms. Lynch as our next Attorney General without delay to reassure the American people that the Justice Department will continue its diligent work under first-rate leadership seamlessly.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Why Is the Best Attorney General Receiving the Worst Treatment?

By U.S. Representative
John Conyers, Jr.

Tomorrow, the House is expected to vote on whether to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over internal deliberative documents related to Operation Fast and Furious.

Last week, the attorney general -- who has testified on this matter on nine separate occasions and has provided more than 7,600 pages of documents already -- offered to resolve the dispute by turning over to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform internal deliberative documents responsive to the Committee's key question. The Department of Justice stood ready to brief the Committee and to answer any questions that might come up regarding the documents. Chairman Issa responded by saying, "I can't accept the [deal the attorney general offered]. No other chairman would."

I must beg to differ. As a former Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, I accepted a similar deal with the Bush administration. The issue arose in connection with my investigation into the involvement of the Justice Department and the White House into the peremptory firing of nine U.S. Attorneys in early 2007.

As a former chair of both the Committee on Government Operations and the House Judiciary Committee, I take a back seat to no one in the vigor and completeness of my investigations. At the same time, I appreciate the need for both Democratic and Republican administrations to have some breathing space when they respond to congressional oversight. In the U.S. Attorney firings investigation, we were interested in learning how the firings came about, who made the decisions, and why. We were less interested in obtaining documents detailing what members of the Bush administration thought about our efforts.

With regard to the Justice Department, we worked out an agreement to access certain internal deliberative documents that were created before the Judiciary Committee's oversight investigation began. These documents were germane to our efforts to learn why the United States Attorneys were fired and who was responsible for it.

Getting to the bottom of White House involvement in the scandal proved more difficult. President Bush made a blanket assertion of executive privilege, refusing to turn over any White House documents or make any key administration witnesses available for testimony. The Judiciary Committee successfully challenged President Bush's sweeping privilege assertion in court. In March 2009, after the administration changed, we negotiated an accommodation with representatives of the former president that met our needs and respected theirs.

Our Agreement of Accommodation provided that the Judiciary Committee would receive White House documents generated prior to the commencement of our investigation on March 8, 2007, but we were only able to review (without retaining copies) a very small subset of the White House documents generated after that date. In short, we were able to conduct legitimate oversight into the actual allegations regarding the U.S. Attorney firings while respecting the Administration's ability to deliberate in confidence over how to respond to my investigation.

This basic respect for confidential communications is well established. In the 1974 U.S. v. Nixondecision, the Supreme Court reasoned that compelled disclosure of deliberative material would discourage executive branch officials from giving candid advice, because "those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decision making process." From President Reagan to President Obama, every administration has sought to protect this material and, for the most part, Congress has balanced its oversight needs with the need of executive branch officials to advise the president in confidence.

There are two principal differences between my deal with the Bush administration and the deal Attorney General Holder has offered to the Oversight Committee. First, it took us far longer, and required far more legal process, to bring the Bush administration to the point where it would agree to the deal. Attorney General Holder has sought, in good faith, to head off this conflict for weeks now. Second, Attorney General Holder has offered to turn over outright (rather than just make available for review) some of the documents that were generated in the course of the Department's efforts to respond to the Oversight Committee's demands.

Attorney General Holder has made a compelling offer -- one that serves the needs of the investigation, and one that is quite similar to the deal I accepted last Congress.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers Praises Attorney General Holder’s Record on Voting and Civil Rights

(WASHINGTON)—Today, Attorney General Eric Holder testified at a House Judiciary Committee oversight hearing of the Department of Justice.  Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) released this statement following the hearing.

U.S. Representative
John Conyers, Jr.

“I applaud Attorney General Holder and the Department of Justice for its aggressive enforcement of voting and civil rights laws,” said Conyers.  “Conservatives on this committee have characterized the Department of Justice’s challenge to state voter laws as ‘politically motivated.’  But under the Voting Rights Act, prescribed states and jurisdictions with a history of discriminatory practices towards protected classes must obtain preclearance before voting and redistricting changes can be implemented.  The Department of Justice is correct to use its enforcement authority to address these attacks on voting rights and other ongoing civil rights issues. 

·         Enforcing Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  The Department has aggressively enforced Section 5, which ensures that states with a history of discrimination cannot create additional barriers to minority access to the ballot box.  The Department has already blocked discriminatory voter ID laws in Texas and South Carolina.

·         Stopping illegal “purges” of the voting rolls.  Last week, the Voting Section wrote to the State of Florida demanding that they cease and desist from “purging” voters from the rolls.  The practice was not submitted to the Department under Section 5, and would not have been approved if it had been.

·         Protecting the voting rights of members of the Armed Services.  The Department has secured court orders and consent decrees in 14 jurisdictions to better enforce the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act. 

·         Restoring the integrity of the Civil Rights Division.  After the Office of the Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility completed their review of illegal, partisan hiring practices under the last Administration, their final report included recommendations for improved, transparent hiring process at the Civil Rights Division.  Under the leadership of AssistantAttorney General Tom Perez, the Division has fully adopted each of those recommendations—and is now predominantly staffed by attorneys with actual experience in the field of civil rights law.

·         Enforcing the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.  The Department’s $335 million settlement with Countrywide Financial Corporation last December compensated families who were charged higher fees and interest rates because of their race or national origin.  This enforcement action makes clear that the Department will not hesitate to hold financial institutions accountable for lending discrimination.

“Lastly, it is unfortunate that some conservative members chose to spend their allotted time criticizing the attorney general, rather than listening to the facts regarding Operation Fast and Furious, a failed ‘gun walking’ operation conceived by agents assigned to a local ATF field office and individuals in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona.  Perhaps if they took the time to listen to Mr. Holder’s response, they would realize the attorney general has been exceedingly accommodating to requests for information by this and other congressional committees.  To date, the Department of Justice has provided over 7,600 pages of documents to Congress.  It has made additional law enforcement sensitive materials available to Congress in dozens of briefings.  Senior Department officials have been questioned in hearings and transcribed interviews.  The attorney general has testified before multiple congressional committees about this issue.  In fact, today marks his eighth appearance before a congressional committee this Congress.  I find it hard to characterize his and the Department of Justice’s actions as ‘stonewalling.’”

Learn more: BEVERLY TRAN http://beverlytran.blogspot.com/#ixzz1xQjNPTW9
Stop Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare 

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Attorney General Holder Promises to Defend Voting Rights

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder promises to defend voting rights at Conference of National Black Churches annual meeting.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder promised to uphold voting rights in his keynote address this morning at the Conference of National Black Churches annual meeting in Washington D.C. The three-day event is being held in conjunction with the Congressional Black Caucus and focuses on issues of concern to members of the nation’s nine largest African American denominations.

The Attorney General promised to defend the Voting Rights Act of 1965, especially Section 5, which requires Justice Department clearance before changes can be made to voting laws in Southern states and those that have a history of disenfranchising Black voters.

“This process, known as ‘preclearance,’ has been a powerful tool in combating discrimination for decades.  And it has consistently enjoyed broad bipartisan support – including in its most recent reauthorization, when President Bush and an overwhelming Congressional majority came together in 2006 to renew the Act’s key provisions – and extend it until 2031. Yet, in the six years since its reauthorization, Section 5 has increasingly come under attack by those who claim it’s no longer needed,” said Holder.

He also said that between 1965 and 2010, only eight challenges to Section 5 were filed in court, but in the last two years there have been “no fewer than nine lawsuits contesting the constitutionality of that provision.” Each challenge “claims that we’ve attained a new era of electoral equality, that America in 2012 has moved beyond the challenges of 1965, and that Section 5 is no longer necessary,” he said, adding that “nearly two dozen new state laws and executive orders” enacted in more than a dozen states “could make it significantly harder for many eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012.”

“We’re now examining a number of redistricting plans in covered jurisdictions, as well as other types of changes to our election systems and processes – including changes to the procedures governing third-party voter registration organizations, to early voting procedures, and to photo identification requirements – to ensure that there is no discriminatory purpose or effect.  If a state passes a new voting law and meets its burden of showing that the law is not discriminatory, we will follow the law and approve the change.  And, as we have demonstrated repeatedly, when a jurisdiction fails to meet its burden of proving that a proposed voting change would not have a racially discriminatory effect – we will object, as we have in 15 separate cases since last September,” said Holder.

The Attorney General also promised to protect the voting rights of military personnel and other Americans living abroad, as well as veterans, citizens with disabilities, college students, and language minorities at home, but said “no form of electoral fraud ever has been – or ever will be – tolerated by the United States government.”

Coincidentally, in a statement published by The Hill today, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.), the ranking members of the Committees on the Judiciary and House Administration, announced that they were joining other Democrats in introducing theVoter Empowerment Act, which they say “protects the integrity of elections by improving eligible voters’ access to the ballot box” by modernizing voter registration, “automatically and permanently enroll consenting eligible voters,” providing for online registration, allowing same day voter registration at the poll, and simplifying the registration process for members of the military serving overseas, among other things.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Attorney General Eric Holder Launches Consumer Protection Working Group to Combat Consumer Fraud

Attorney General Eric Holder Launches Consumer Protection Working Group to Combat Consumer Fraud
Working Group Created Under President Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force Brings Together Federal, State, and Local Partners

U.S. Department of JusticeFebruary 13, 2012

Office of Public Affairs(202) 514-2007/TDD (202)514-1888

WASHINGTON—The Consumer Protection Working Group, formed under President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force (FFETF), convened its first meeting in Washington, D.C., today to address consumer fraud, which can financially cripple households and can cause extensive losses to our economy. The newly created group will work across federal law enforcement and regulatory agencies, and with state and local partners, to strengthen efforts to address consumer-related fraud, including schemes targeting vulnerable populations, such as the unemployed, those in need of payday loans, and those suffering from the burden of high credit card and other debt. The new working group will also focus on scams that exploit prospective students, active-duty military personnel, and veterans.

“The schemes we are combating are as diverse as the imaginations of those who perpetrate them, and as sophisticated as modern technology will permit. Thanks in large part to the leadership of the President’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force we are tackling financial fraud, in all its forms, head on,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “Through the extensive and coordinated partnership we start today, we will strengthen our collective efforts, enhance civil and criminal enforcement of consumer fraud and educate the public in an effort to prevent consumers from being victimized in the first place.”

Attorney General Holder delivered remarks at today’s meeting which was convened by FFETF Executive Director Michael Bresnick along with the working group’s co-chairs: Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice’s Civil Division Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division Lanny Breuer, U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California André Birotte and Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) David Vladeck. Another co-chair, Director of Enforcement for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Kent Markus, was unable to attend the meeting.

“We know all too well how opportunistic fraudsters have adapted their schemes to take advantage of consumers facing financial hardships, using false promises of mortgage modification, debt relief, and job placement, to name a few. Since 2009, the FTC has brought over 90 cases to stop these scams,” said Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection for the FTC David Vladeck. “This partnership will only serve to enhance our collective efforts to protect consumers.”

The Consumer Protection Working Group will address several areas of concern, including payday lending and other high-pressure telemarketing or Internet scams, business opportunity schemes, for-profit schools that engage in fraud or misrepresentation, and fraudulent third party payment processors that facilitate payments on behalf of other fraudsters without the permission of the customer.

At today’s meeting, the Consumer Protection Working Group members set priorities and discussed taking collaborative steps to continue to seek out and prosecute consumer fraud as well as protect consumers from fraud before it happens through outreach and education. The new working group plans to establish a best-practices tool kit, legislative, regulatory and policy initiatives, and an information sharing structure.

Other members of the Consumer Protection Working Group include representatives from the Department of Treasury, FBI, Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, U.S. Secret Service, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, Department of Education’s Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Trustee Program, the National Association of Attorneys General, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve Board, and the National Credit Union Administration. The state attorneys general are represented on the working group by Attorney General Lisa Madigan from Illinois, Attorney General Greg Zoeller from Indiana, and Attorney General Roy Cooper from North Carolina.

The Consumer Protection Working Group is part of ongoing enforcement efforts by President Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated, and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general, and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes.

Since its formation, the task force has made great strides in facilitating increased investigation and prosecution of financial crimes; enhancing coordination and cooperation among federal, state, and local authorities; addressing discrimination in the lending and financial markets; and conducting outreach to the public, victims, financial institutions, and other organizations. Task force members have charged a record number of mortgage fraud cases in the past two years, trained more than 100,000 professionals responsible for awarding and overseeing Recovery Act funds and held regional summits around the country to discuss strategies, resources and initiatives, as well as to meet with communities most affected by the financial crisis.

Learn more about the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force at www.stopfraud.gov.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©