Day 48.3 Evasion, Evasion,Evasion Wray Lays an Goose Egg

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Day 48.1 Unsealed Indictments - Ft. Belvoir Smuggler's Cove?

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Day 47.4. John Wilkes Phone Booth - Simple Daily Bag Drop Interrupted By DHS Hack Flight?

DOJ failed to interview FBI informant before it filed charges in Russian nuclear bribery case

While he was Maryland’s chief federal prosecutor, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s office failed to interview the undercover informant in the FBI’s Russian nuclear bribery case before it filed criminal charges in the case in 2014, officials told The Hill.

And the prosecutors did not let a grand jury hear from the paid informant before it handed up an indictment portraying him as a “victim” of the Russian corruption scheme or fully review his extensive trove of documents until months later, the officials confirmed.

The decisions backfired after prosecutors conducted more extensive debriefings of William Campbell in 2015, learning much more about the extent of his undercover activities and the transactions he engaged in while under the FBI’s direction, the officials said.

The debriefings forced prosecutors to recast their entire criminal case against former Russian uranium industry executive Vadim Mikerinn — removing the informant as a star witness and main victim for the prosecution, the officials added.

Justice Department officials began briefing Congress last week, divulging missteps in a case that nonetheless proved the Russian state-owned Rosatom was engaged in criminal activity through its top American executive beginning in 2009, well before the Obama administration made a series of favorable decisions benefitting Moscow’s nuclear giant.

Multiple House and Senate committees already are investigating whether the FBI alerted President Obama or his top aides to the Russian criminal activity and plan to interview the undercover informant soon.

The new revelations, however, could tip some scrutiny toward federal prosecutors’ own conduct in the case, a sensitive topic since Rosenstein is now Justice’s No. 2 official and the supervisor of the special counsel investigation into Russian election tampering.

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said it was troubling that prosecutors would ever bring a case without talking first to a person they portrayed in court as a victim, especially when that person was an FBI informant available to them.

“I’ve never heard of such a case unless the victim is dead. I’ve never heard of prosecutors making a major case and not talking to the victim before you made it, especially when he was available to them through the FBI,” Dershowitz said.

“It is negligence, and I’m sure there will be internal issues with the Justice Department and U.S. attorney for making such an obvious mistake,” he said.

Officials told The Hill that prosecutors working for Rosenstein first interviewed Campbell, the informant, after they had already filed a sealed criminal complaint against Mikerin in July 2014.

Campbell got one debriefing after the criminal charges were filed, but was never brought before the grand jury that indicted the Russian figure in November 2014 even though the informer was portrayed as “Victim One” in that indictment, the officials confirmed

When prosecutors finally interviewed Campbell more extensively in early 2015 and reviewed all of the records he had gathered for the FBI, they learned new information about the sequence of transactions he conducted while under the FBI’s supervision, as well as the extensive nature of his counterintelligence work for the U.S. government that went far beyond the Mikerin case and dated to at least 2006, the officials said.

“Based on what was learned, we decided to change the theory of the case. … A plea deal became our goal so we wouldn’t have to litigate or make an issue of some of the stuff he had done for [counterintelligence] purposes,” a source directly familiar with the case said.

Campbell’s lawyer, Victoria Toensing, confirmed the Justice officials’ account. “The first time Mr. Campbell was interviewed by the U.S. Attorney’s office was after the criminal complaint was filed, and he was never brought before the grand jury before the indictment,” she told The Hill.

Justice officials said they knew when they first brought the case that Campbell had been part of a controlled, FBI-authorized bribery scheme, meaning he had permission to make payments to the Russians as kickbacks to further the investigation.

They declined to say why, with that knowledge, they initially portrayed Campbell in the indictment as a “victim” of an extortion scheme that began in November 2009 when the FBI had authorized him to make regular kickback payments of $50,000 in order to keep his consulting work for the Russians.

They said, however, they decided to pivot the case from extortion to money laundering after the more extensive 2015 debriefings revealed other transactions that pre-dated the extortion charges.

One source familiar with the case said extortion felt like a weaker charge when Campbell was acting with the FBI’s blessing and that the evidence of money laundering that Campbell documented through secret accounts in Latvia and Cyprus was irrefutable.

Campbell, who now has leukemia, also suffered an earlier bout with cancer in the middle of the case when a lesion was detected on his brain. He survived, all the while working undercover, but he developed some memory issues after treatment, sources said.

To compensate, he developed a system of extensive note taking and documentation with his FBI handlers through email to ensure facts were captured before his memory became hazy. A lot of those notes did not get reviewed by prosecutors until 2015, well after charges were filed, the sources said.

The documentation shows Campbell’s work had exposed wide-ranging details about Russia’s nuclear activities across the globe, including efforts to corner the global uranium market, assist Iranian nuclear ambitions and to criminally compromise a U.S. trucking firm that transported Russia’s nuclear fuel, they said.

Officials said the investigation and Campbell’s work from 2006 to 2013 fell under the FBI’s counterintelligence arm and Justice’s national security division, and officials originally did not intend for it to become a criminal case.

Justice officials originally hoped they simply could use the threat of criminal prosecution to “flip” Mikerin as a cooperating asset, but their confrontation with him at an office building in 2014 failed to persuade him to cooperate, sources said.

Prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office in Maryland then assembled charges and an indictment, using mostly information from the FBI’s counterintelligence files and interviews of Campbell done by an Energy Department investigative agent, officials said

Mikerin was an icon in the Russian nuclear industry, a top executive of the state-controlled Rosatom firm and its Tenex subsidiary and the man Moscow sent to Washington in 2010 to oversee Russian President Vladimir Putin’s plan to grow uranium sales inside the United States under the Obama administration.

The November 2014 indictment, bearing Rosenstein’s name, charged Mikerin with felony conspiracy to interfere with interstate commerce through extortion.

Court documents alleged Mikerin was part of a larger racketeering scheme that also involved bribery, kickbacks and money laundering and that he demanded $50,000 in regular kickbacks from Campbell starting in November 2009 in order for Campbell to keep his consulting work for the Russians.

The court documents portrayed Campbell alternatively as “Victim One” or “Confidential Witness 1” who came forward to report Mikerin’s wrongdoing and cooperate with the FBI.

In fact, Campbell had been under the FBI’s control informing on the Russian nuclear industry since 2006, had signed a formal nondisclosure agreement with the FBI in 2008 and eventually was rewarded in 2016 with a $51,000 check for his extensive counterintelligence work.

Mikerin eventually pleaded guilty to a money laundering conspiracy charge and was sentenced in December 2015 to 48 months in prison.

A month later, the FBI paid Campbell compensation of more than $51,000, a transaction prosecutors did not learn about until The Hill published a copy of the check last month, officials said.

Congress is now investigating the entire Russian nuclear bribery case after The Hill disclosed Campbell’s work, with multiple committees demanding to know whether the FBI told the Obama administration about Mikerin’s criminality before the administration made favorable decisions that rewarded Rosatom with billions of dollars in new American nuclear fuel contracts.

Justice officials began briefing congressional officials this week, starting with the Senate Judiciary Committee. After the briefings end, congressional investigators plan to interview Campbell.

After Campbell’s name and work surfaced, anonymous allegations surfaced in stories by Yahoo and Reuters suggesting the Justice Department had grave reservations about Campbell’s credibility, in part because he had three misdemeanor alcohol arrests.

But officials told The Hill those leaks were not authorized by the Justice Department and did not reflect accurately the official thinking of the department.

For instance, they said prosecutors had no concerns about Campbell’s three misdemeanor alcohol arrests and that the FBI held the informant in enough esteem to pay him the check after the case ended. And after prosecutors completed three debriefings with Campbell, they approved the payment in 2015 of the last of his expenses as an undercover.

Prosecutors’ concerns primarily dealt with the sequence of events and transactions surrounding Campbell’s undercover work during the counterintelligence part of the probe before criminal prosecutors got involved, officials said.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Day 47.3. John Wilkes Phone Booth Revisited

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Under New Ethics Committee Investigation

Boy, oh boy...

I wonder what Cynthia Martin has to say.

This is about to get really, really juicy.

Much, much more to come.

On a mission...

#FollowTheWhiteRabbit

Ethics Committee Opens Investigation Into Top Democrat Who Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accuser

The House Ethics Committee has opened an investigation into Michigan Democrat Rep. John Conyers, after it was revealed Monday that Conyers paid a former employee more than $27,000 in taxpayer funding after allegedly firing her for refusing his sexual advances.

Sworn affidavits signed by former Conyers staffers portray him as a serial sexual predator who preyed on young, vulnerable female staffers. Conyers confirmed the settlement on Tuesday but denied any wrongdoing.

(RELATED: REVEALED: Top Democrat Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accuser With $27K In Taxpayer Money)

“The Committee is aware of public allegations that Representative John Conyers, Jr. may have engaged in sexual harassment of his staff, discriminated against certain staff on the basis of age, and used official resources for impermissible personal purposes,” the committee said in a statement Tuesday afternoon. The statement adds that the committee “has begun an investigation and will gather additional information regarding these allegations.”

Conyers regularly made sexual advances on female staffers and would ask them for sexual favors, according to the affidavits signed by his former staffers. “Rep. Conyers strongly postulated that the performing of personal service or favors would be looked upon favorably and lead to salary increases or promotions,” one former employee said in an affidavit.

BuzzFeed News first reported the bombshell allegations and accompanying settlement on Monday after right-wing blogger Mike Cernovich provided the website with the documents.

Conyrers also allegedly abused taxpayer funds to shuttle in women with whom he had sexual relationships.

“One of my duties while working for Rep. Conyers was to keep a list of women that I assumed he was having affairs with and call them at his request and, if necessary, have them flown in using Congressional resources,” one former Conyers stated in an affidavit. Another staffer told BuzzFeed that Conyers used taxpayer funds to fly women into see him.

House Democrats had called for an investigation into Conyers, the longest-serving member of Congress, but stopped short of calling on him to resign.

Their reaction is similar to Senate Democrats’ call for a Senate Ethics Committee investigation into Minnesota Sen. Al Franken, after multiple women came forward saying the Democratic senator had groped them. Franken asked for an ethics committee investigation into himself, but declined to resign.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Statement On Buzzfeed Article And The Release Of Confidential Congressional Documents

According to a spokesperson for Congressman Conyers:

“The Associated Press made an unannounced visit to the home of Congressman Conyers this morning.  Congressman Conyers was under the impression the reporter was speaking of recent allegations of which he was unaware of and denied.” 

The following is a statement from Representative Conyers regarding the Buzzfeed article:

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

“I have long been and continue to be a fierce advocate for equality in the workplace and I fully support the rights of employees who believe they have been harassed or discriminated against to assert claims against their employers. 

 That said, it is important to recognize that the mere making of an allegation does not mean it is true. The process must be fair to both the employee and the accused. The current media environment is bringing a much-needed focus to the important issue of preventing harassment in workplaces across the country. 

 However, equally important to keep in mind in this particular moment is the principle of due process and that those accused of wrongdoing are presumed innocent unless and until an investigation establishes otherwise. 

 In our country, we strive to honor this fundamental principle that all are entitled to due process. In this case, I expressly and vehemently denied the allegations made against me, and continue to do so. My office resolved the allegations – with an express denial of liability – in order to save all involved from the rigors of protracted litigation. That should not be lost in the narrative. 

 The resolution was not for millions of dollars, but rather for an amount that equated to a reasonable severance payment. 

 There are statutory requirements of confidentiality that apply to both the employee and me regarding this matter. 

 To the extent the House determines to look further at these issues, I will fully cooperate with an investigation.”

NOTE:  On November 19, 2017, there was a hack on the U.S. Judiciary Democrats website. 

Mike Cernovich, the source for the Buzzfeed article, has yet to disclose how he came to be in possession of confidential documents of congress.

The matter is being further investigated.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: Judiciary Statement On Markup Of H.R. 3989, The USA Liberty Act

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I want to begin by acknowledging the opposition to this bill.

There are many in the civil liberties community who fear that H.R. 3989, the USA Liberty Act, does not accomplish every reform we had hoped to see. 

They are rightly concerned that the government has used the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in ways that Congress had never contemplated, and that the public would never tolerate. 

Others fear the bill goes too far.  For the most part, these critics are patriots charged with keeping us safe, and whose greatest fear is somehow falling short in that responsibility.

           

To those in the civil liberties community, I would point to all of the good work done in this bill.

For years, our members have expressed concern that information collected under Section 702 is repurposed for criminal investigations and other projects that have nothing whatsoever to do with national security. 

This bill will end that practice.  If a law enforcement agency wants  access to this information, they must first obtain a warrant based on individualized suspicion and probable cause.

We have also, for years, opposed so-called “about” collection—the gathering of communications that simply mention foreign targets—both because Congress never intended for Section 702 to be used that way, and because it swept in so much unrelated content. 

Twice, the FISA court has taken a hard look at “about” collection.  Twice, the court found it deficient on Fourth Amendment grounds, taking the government to task for an institutional “lack of candor” that allowed the deficiencies to persist for years without correction. 

           

In March, faced with the prospect of losing Section 702 altogether, the NSA voluntarily ended the practice.  Our bill would prohibit that type of surveillance by law.

The bill also creates a new regime of transparency and accountability. 

It encourages the court to appoint an amicus to its annual hearings on Section 702—someone to push back against the government’s more creative legal arguments. 

Any agency that has access to Section 702 information must publish their minimization procedures. 

The government will owe both Congress and the public a never-before-seen level of detail about how they use this statute. 

Have we accomplished every reform I had hoped to see?  We have not. 

But this legislation represents real, achievable, substantive reform. 

I am proud of this work, and Chairman Goodlatte and I will fight to protect this package of reforms as it makes its way to the floor.

To the men and women of the intelligence community, I would point to the extraordinary lengths we have taken to ensure that you have the tools you need to analyze foreign intelligence information.

I know that many are uncomfortable with the prospect of reform—any reform—not because they want to spy on Americans, but because they want to protect us from real and present threats to our country.

But there is a reason that it falls to this Committee—and not to the intelligence committees, or to the agencies themselves—to build the legal framework for these powerful surveillance authorities. 

In this room, a step or two removed from the urgency of every threat that comes across the screen, we can have an honest conversation about how these authorities accord with our values. 

That is precisely what has happened here.  For months, we have examined Section 702 in a sober and serious light.  We have heard from government agents, legal experts, technology and communication companies, and the best of civil society.

At the end of our discussion, we have reached consensus that Section 702 should be reauthorized—but if, and only if, it can be brought better in line with values like privacy, transparency, and due process.

Which brings me to my concluding thought: 

When we discuss powers and programs like these, it can be tempting to frame the discussion as balancing act between security and privacy.

I find that framing a false choice.

The central thesis of the USA Liberty Act is that we can have both security and privacy.  We can give the government the tools it needs and do so in a way that better respects our core values.

We proved that we could do so in the last Congress, when we worked together to pass the USA Freedom Act.

We will do so again today.

I want to thank the Chairman for his leadership on this issue. 

I also want to thank each of the original cosponsors of this bill—Democrats and Republicans alike—for lending their support to this important project. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield the balance of my time.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: Ahead Of DOJ Oversight Hearing House Judiciary Committee Democrats Put Sessions On Notice

Washington, D.C. – Today, ahead of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on November 14, 2017, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) led a letter, below, signed by every Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee to Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

The letter, below, was signed by every Democratic member of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, including: Representatives John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Ted Deutch (D-FL), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Karen Bass (D-CA), Cedric Richmond (D-LA), Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), David Cicilline (D-RI), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and Brad Schneider (D-IL). 

The hearing will take place in 2141 Rayburn House Office Building and will be webcast live at judiciary.house.gov. On the day of the hearing, media will be allowed access to the committee hearing room at 9:30 a.m.

Congressionally credentialed members of the media MUST RSVP to their respective Press Gallery no later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, November 13. Gallery contact information is below:
 

House Radio/TV Gallery:	radiotv@mail.house.gov 202-225-5214
House Periodical Gallery:	periodical.press@mail.house.gov 202-225-2941
House Daily Press Gallery:	dailypressgallery@mail.house.gov 202-225-3945
Photographer Gallery:	press_photo@saa.senate.gov 202-224-6548

U.S. House Judiciary Democrats Notice To AG Sessions On Congressional Hearings, Letter 11-07-2017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS, GOODLATTE and Judiciary Committee Members Introduce the USA Liberty Act

Washington, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.)Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.),  Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee Ranking Member Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), and Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet Subcommittee Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) today introduced the USA Liberty Act (H.R. 3989). This bipartisan bill reforms and reauthorizes Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which is set to expire at the end of this year, to protect both national security and Americans’ civil liberties.

The USA Liberty Act preserves the core purpose of Section 702: the collection of communications by targeting non-U.S. persons located outside the U.S. in order to identify and thwart terrorist plots against our nation and our citizens. The bill also creates a new framework of protections and transparency requirements to ensure that the government’s use of Section 702 accords with principles enshrined in our Constitution that protect individual liberty. It provides new accountability measures to address the unmasking of U.S. persons’ identities and new reporting requirements on the number of U.S. persons who have been swept up in Section 702 collection. The bill also enhances national security by increasing penalties for those who leak classified information and calling on the intelligence agencies to share information with each other and with our allies to combat terrorism.

Below are statements from Judiciary Committee leaders on the introduction of the USA Liberty Act.

Ranking Member Conyers: “Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is essential to the intelligence community’s gathering of foreign intelligence and detecting threats to the homeland.  Its reauthorization should include reforms that bring this authority better in line with our sense of privacy and due process.  Indeed, we believe that it will only be possible to reauthorize Section 702 with such reforms in place. The bipartisan USA Liberty Act is designed to accomplish this goal.”

Chairman Goodlatte: “The USA Liberty Act protects Americans’ lives and their civil liberties. This bipartisan bill reauthorizes a critical national security tool that keeps Americans safe but also reforms it to protect Americans’ constitutional rights. It contains more accountability, transparency, and oversight so that the American people have confidence that our cherished liberties continue to be protected as the intelligence community keeps us safe from foreign enemies wishing to harm our nation and citizens. The bill also contains a number of measures to further enhance national security so that our country remains free and safe. I thank the many members who have worked on this bill for months and look forward to bringing it up in the House Judiciary Committee soon.”

Crime Subcommittee Chairman Sensenbrenner: “The USA Liberty Act is carefully crafted, bipartisan legislation that represents the type of common sense compromise that we desperately need in this country. It balances privacy and security concerns by requiring greater oversight, transparency, and accountability of the government’s surveillance powers while limiting the incidental collection of Americans’ communications and requiring a court order to query data. It also puts in place a critical six-year sunset provision, allowing Congress to respond appropriately to the ever-changing threats facing our nation. This is smart, forward-leaning legislation that I urge my colleagues to get behind.”

Crime Subcommittee Ranking Member Jackson Lee: “Collectively, what Democrats and Republicans have agreed on is a strategy that secures the homeland, while preserving cherished liberties that still make America the envy of the world.”

IP Subcommittee Ranking Member Nadler: “The USA Liberty Act is an attempt to strike the appropriate balance, as we did in the USA Freedom Act, of giving our intelligence agencies the tools they need to keep us safe while making sure individual liberty and privacy rights are better protected. For the first time, the bill institutes a requirement for a warrant—based on probable cause—for criminal investigators to query the information obtained by the 702 program. In addition, this legislation significantly curbs the amount of incidental information that can be searched, and, most importantly, institutes critical operational norms for the 702 program that make it more accountable, more transparent, and ultimately more effective in striking the critical balance between national security needs and the individual’s constitutional rights. I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers for working in good faith on the USA Liberty Act, which goes a long way in reforming government surveillance under Section 702.”

Additional original cosponsors of the bill include Representatives Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), Doug Collins (R-Ga.), Mike Johnson (R-La.), John Rutherford (R-Fla.) Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.).

Background: FISA Section 702, which will expire on December 31, 2017, authorizes surveillance of the communications of non-U.S. persons located outside of the United States in order to protect national security. It reportedly contributes to a quarter of all National Security Agency surveillance and has been used on multiple occasions to detect and prevent horrific terrorist plots against our country. Although Congress designed this authority to target non-U.S. persons located outside of the United States, it is clear that Section 702 surveillance programs can and do incidentally collect information about U.S. persons when U.S. persons communicate with the foreign targets of Section 702 surveillance.

House Judiciary Summary of USA Liberty Act To Reform and Reauthorize Section FISA Section 702 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

House Introduced USA Liberty Act Bill Text by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS, BEYERS, House Democrats Introduce Security Clearance Review Act

Would authorize the FBI Director to revoke the security clearance of Senior White House staff

July 28, 2017 (Washington, D.C.) – Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Don Beyer (D-VA), Ranking Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, today introduced the Security Clearance Review Act. The bill would authorize the Director of the FBI to revoke the security clearance of an employee of the Executive Office of the President if the Director deems such actions necessary to national security. Their legislation was cosponsored by 19 additional Representatives.

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

“The Trump Administration has a very poor track record when it comes to their handling of classified information—and those are only incidents we know about,” said Rep. Conyers.  “Given that several senior officials appear to have failed to disclose their contacts with foreign governments on their applications for a security clearance, given that President Trump is related by marriage to at least one of these officials, and given that the President himself appears to have played fast and loose with sensitive intelligence, it is imperative that the authority to revoke these clearances extend beyond the President, to include the Director of the FBI.”

“Donald Trump’s refusal to hold his senior staff accountable for their deceptions on Russia have sadly made this legislation necessary,” said Rep. Beyer. “Despite all we have learned about his secret meetings with Russians, Jared Kushner apparently continues to hold his clearance.  Jared Kushner’s case and that of disgraced former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn make it clear that we need further protections when it comes to security clearances for the President’s family and closest advisers. I thank my colleague, Ranking Member Conyers, for working with me to craft legislation to protect our national security.”

The cosponsors of the bill are Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Donald Payne Jr. (D-NJ), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Norma Torres (D-CA), Betty McCollum (D-MN), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Peter Welch (D-VT), David Cicilline (D-RI), Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH), Kathleen Rice (D-NY), Dwight Evans (D-PA), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Brendan Boyle (D-PA), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA).

The bill is, below.

Rep. Beyer has led congressional attempts to hold Jared Kushner accountable for “omitted” meetings with Russian officials from his SF-86 form since Kushner’s failure to disclose those meetings was revealed. In April, Beyer and four other Representatives asked the Administration to suspend Jared Kushner’s security clearance.

The FBI’s response to that letter alerted the Representatives to the surprising fact that the President alone holds final authority to suspend or revoke employees of the Executive Office of the President.

Beyer subsequently led over 50 Members of Congress in calling for immediate revocation of Kushner’s security clearance following revelations that the Special Prosecutor was investigating Kushner’s meetings with Russian officials. 

Earlier this month, Beyer led nearly two dozen Representatives seeking FBI scrutiny of White House adviser Ivanka Trump over possible omissions on her SF-86.

Security Clearance Review Act 115th Congress 1st Session by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

BIPARTISAN HOUSE COALITION PRESSES CLAPPER FOR INFORMATION ON PHONE & EMAIL SURVEILLANCE

Washington, DC – Today, a bipartisan group of ten members of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee—including Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), and former Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), wrote to the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to memorialize the Director’s commitment to provide a detailed look at how the government’s phone and email surveillance affects United States citizens.  The intelligence community has promised to provide a public estimate of that impact “early enough to inform the debate” on surveillance reform in the next Congress, with a target date of January 2017.

The letter was signed by Representatives John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Darrell E. Issa (R-CA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Ted Poe (R-TX), Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr. (D-GA), Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Ted Deutch (D-FL), Suzan K. DelBene (D-WA) and David N. Cicilline (D-RI).

U.S. House Bipartisan Coalition Letter To National Intelligence Director James Clapper for Phone & Email Su... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Bipartisan Coalition Presses DOJ About Government Hacking

The United States Congress

Lawmakers Seek Answers About How Government Would Use New Hacking Authority, One Month Before Rule 41 Amendments Would Take Effect

Washington, D.C. –A bipartisan coalition of Senate and House lawmakers today asked Attorney General Loretta Lynch to provide Congress with more information about a proposed expansion of government hacking and surveillance powers.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., Judiciary Committee member Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Ranking Member Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., with House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Rep. John Conyers, Jr., D-Mich., and senior Judiciary Committee member Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, led a bipartisan group of 23 lawmakers asking for more information about the proposal, formally known as amendments to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Unless Congress acts, these new amendments are scheduled to go into effect on December 1.

“We are concerned about the full scope of the new authority that would be provided to the Department of Justice,” the lawmakers wrote. “We believe that Congress -- and the American public -- must better understand the Department’s need for the proposed amendments, how the Department intends to use its proposed new powers, and the potential consequences to our digital security before these rules go into effect.”

 The lawmakers ask DOJ a number of questions about how Rule 41 will be used, including:

• How the government intends to prevent forum shopping by prosecutors seeking court approval to hack into Americans' devices;
• How the government will prevent collateral damage to innocent Americans' devices and electronic data when it remotely search devices such as smartphones or medical devices;
• Whether the government intends to use this new authority to search and “clean” Americans' computers ;
• How the government will maintain a chain of custody when searching or removing evidence from a device;
• How the government will notify Americans who are the subjects of remote government searches.

The letter was also signed by: Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M. and Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah., Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif., Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.

Bipartisan Coalition Presses DOJ About Government Hacking on Rule 41 Letter 10.27.16 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Floor Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. for the Veto Override Vote on “S. 2040, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act”

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

The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States constituted the deadliest foreign attack on American soil in our Nation’s history.

Their impact has been immeasurable as evidenced by the fact that we are still grappling with their cultural and policy implications.

And, 15 years later, their powerful emotional effect on Americans remains as strong as ever.

Those who lost loved ones or were injured as a result of this horrific attack deserve our deepest sympathy and our help.

And, it is in this vein that we consider whether to override the President’s veto of S. 2040, the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act,” which, among other things, amends the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 to create a new exception to the Act’s general grant of foreign sovereign immunity. 

The bill’s supporters present compelling and sympathetic arguments in favor of insuring that the 9/11 families have access to a well-deserved “day in court.”

In his veto message, however, the President raised a number of serious substantive concerns about the potential unintended consequences of this legislation.

First, the President stated that S. 2040 could undermine the effectiveness of our Nation’s national security and counter-terrorism efforts. 

For instance, other nations may become more reluctant to share sensitive intelligence in light of the greater risk that such information may be revealed in litigation.

Moreover, the President raised the concern that this legislation would effectively allow non-expert private litigants and courts, rather than national security and foreign policy experts, to determine key foreign and national security policy questions like which states are sponsors of terrorism.

Second, the President asserted that enactment of S. 2040 may lead to retaliation by other countries against the United States given the breadth of our interests and the expansive reach of our global activities.

While it seems likely at this juncture that S. 2040 will be enacted over the President’s veto, I remain hopeful that we can continue to work toward the enactment of subsequent legislation to address the President’s concerns.

I understand the moral imperative of enacting legislation in this matter, but I am sensitive to the seriousness of the concerns that the President raised.

I had expressed the hope during the Floor debate on this bill that Congress and the President could work together to find a better balance that would still enable 9/11 victims to seek justice while tempering the President’s concerns.

There is no doubt as to the passion that the bill’s supporters bring to advocating for the victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks, a passion that I share.

As legislators, however, we must be driven not only by understandable emotions, but by thoughtful consideration of the long-term interests of our country.  For this reason, the expected outcome of today’s vote should not be the end of this matter.

For the forgoing reasons, and those stated by the President, national security experts, international law scholars, and others, however, I must vote to sustain the President’s veto.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. “Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation”

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Director Comey, for your appearance here today.

The FBI’s mission is a complex undertaking: to protect the United States from terrorism, to enforce our criminal laws, and to lead the nation’s law enforcement community.

That mission ought to mirror our own priorities in this Committee. 

In the past few days, for example, we have witnessed near-fatal terrorist attacks in Minnesota, New York, and New Jersey.

These attacks underscore the growing fear that individuals can be moved to violence at home by the propaganda of ISIS and other terrorist groups abroad—even though they have no direct connection to those organizations.

To me, this threat is dire.  We should be doing all we can within our communities—and within our constitutional framework—to mitigate the danger.

But will our Majority use their time today to discuss these attacks?  I suspect it will not be their focus in this campaign season.

In Charlotte, in Tulsa, in Dallas—right here in Washington, DC—and in other cities across this country, our citizens demand answers to questions about race and policing, and the use of lethal force by law enforcement. 

Our police are under siege, often under resourced, and in some cases hard pressed to build trust with the communities they serve.

Director Comey, your continued work to foster lines of communication between police officers and the general public is commendable—and necessary if we are to keep our citizens safe from harm.

But will my colleagues discuss this pressing issue with the Director of the FBI, whose leadership in the law enforcement community is paramount?  Again, I fear their focus will be elsewhere.

The FBI is the lead agency in the investigation of cyber-based terrorism, computer intrusions, online sexual exploitation, and major cyber fraud.  We have known for some years about the persistent cyber threat to our critical infrastructure.

Now, we hear reports of a new cyber threat—to the very basis of our democratic process.

Twice this summer, Director Comey, I wrote to you with my fellow ranking members to ask you to look into reports that Russian state actors are working to undermine our election process.

Without objection, I ask that both of those letters be placed into the record.

It is now the clear consensus of the Intelligence Community that the Russian government was behind the hack of the Democratic National Committee—and not, as some have suggested, “somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds.”

On Friday, we learned from one report that: “U.S. intelligence officials are seeking to determine whether an American businessman identified by Donald Trump as one of his foreign policy advisors has opened up private communications with senior Russian officials—including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president.”

           

The report cites to an unnamed “senior U.S. law enforcement official,” which I presume means someone in your orbit, Director Comey.

Without objection, I ask that this article be placed into the record as well.

Let me be clear: if true, this allegation represents a danger to our national security and a clear violation of federal law—which expressly prohibits this type of back-channel negotiation.

I am not alone in describing the nature of this threat.  Speaker Ryan himself has said that “Russia is a global menace led by a devious thug.  Putin should say out of this election.”

But will our Majority press you on this problem today, Director Comey?  I suspect not.

Instead, I believe that the focus of this hearing will be more of the same: an attack on you, and your team at the Department of Justice, for declining to recommend criminal charges against Secretary Hillary Clinton.

In recent weeks, this line of attack has been remarkable only for its lack of substance.

Your critics dwell in character assassination and procedural minutia—like the proper scope of immunity agreements, and your decision to protect the identities of individuals wholly unrelated to the investigation.

They want to investigate the investigation, Director Comey.  What an unfortunate waste of this Committee’s time.

With so many actual problems confronting this nation, and so many of those challenges within your jurisdiction and ours, you would think my colleagues would set their priorities differently.

I hope that they do, as they listen to our conversation today.  I thank the Chairman, and I yield back.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©