The Funeral of John Conyers

CONYERS Portrait In The U.S. House Judiciary Committee 2017

The portrait was placed, stage left, on the wall of the U.S. House of Representative Judiciary Committee.

Watch the unveiling ceremony here.

C-SPAN has locked the video on embedding, obstructing use in the public record.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cummings and Nadler Seek Subpoenas for Trump Campaign Consultants Refusing to Deny Foreign Contacts During Election

Washington, D.C. (Dec. 14, 2017)—Today, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the Ranking Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, sent a letter, below, asking their respective Chairmen, Reps. Trey Gowdy and Bob Goodlatte, to issue subpoenas for documents from two Trump Campaign data consultants—Cambridge Analytica and Giles-Parscale—after they refused to deny any communications with foreign actors during the 2016 presidential campaign.

“We understand that you declined to join the original request for documents from these companies, but this is a matter that directly affects our citizens and their exercise of their right to vote,” Cummings and Nadler wrote.  “We owe the American people robust and meaningful oversight of matters affecting the integrity of our electoral process.”

On October 26, 2017, Ranking Members Conyers and Cummings sent a letter to five data consultants—Cambridge Analytica, Giles-Parscale, Target Point, Deep Root, and Data Trust—requesting documents relating to their possible engagement with foreign actors such as WikiLeaks, communication with foreign governments, or the use of misappropriated data.

Cummings and Nadler disclosed today that three of these companies—TargetPoint, Deep Root, and Data Trust, below,—sent responses on the same day, using language that was nearly identical and apparently coordinated, denying any foreign contacts.

In contrast, a letter from Brad Parscale of Giles-Parscale notably failed to deny that his company had contacts  with or received information from foreign actors or governments during the 2016 campaign. 

Recent press accounts have reported that Donald Trump, Jr. emailed Parscale about his correspondence with WikiLeaks.

In addition, Cambridge Analytica refused to respond at all and thus did not deny that the company had contacts and communications with foreign actors or received any stolen or misappropriated data. 

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange confirmed that Cambridge Analytica approached WikiLeaks during the campaign to coordinate the release of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails. 

Alexander Nix, CEO of Cambridge Analytics, also confirmed this outreach.

“Because the first three companies have asserted unequivocally that none of their employees had contacts with any foreign agents during the presidential campaign, we are willing to delay any further inquiry unless or until evidence to the contrary emerges,” Cummings and Nadler wrote.  “However, neither Giles Parscale nor Cambridge Analytica have denied these contacts.  We therefore request that our committees issue subpoenas to these companies to compel the production of the information they are withholding from Congress.”

If the Chairmen decline to issue these subpoenas, then Cummings and Nadler request they place this matter on the agenda for the next regularly scheduled business meeting so Committee Members may vote on motions to subpoena these documents.

Cummings & Nadler to Gowdy Goodlatte Regarding Cambridge Analytica and Giles-Parscale 12-14-2017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Giles-Parscale Response to Conyers Regarding Russian Interference 11-3-2017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

TargetPoint Response to EEC Conyers Re Russian Interference 10-30-2017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

DeepRoot Response to Conyers Regarding Russian Interference 10-30-2017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

DATA TRUST Response to Conyers Re Russian Interference 10-30-2017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Statement of Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler for the Hearing on “Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation”

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Welcome to the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Rosenstein. 

For the better part of a year, my colleagues and I have implored this Committee to conduct real oversight of the Department of Justice. 

On January 24, 2017, we wrote to Chairman Goodlatte insisting that “the Committee hold hearings on President Trump’s conflicts of interest, at home and abroad.”  Citing to experts across the political spectrum, we showed that “[t]he Administration’s attempts to address its ongoing conflicts of interest are, so far, wholly inadequate.”  Six weeks later, Attorney General Sessions was forced to recuse himself from the Russia investigation—but we have not held a single hearing on the question of conflicts of interest.

On March 8, we wrote again to the Chairman, encouraging him to call hearings on “Russia’s alleged interference in the U.S. election.”  Again, no such hearings were ever held.

In fact, this Committee—which during the Obama Administration held half a dozen hearings around Operation Fast & Furious, received testimony from FBI Director James Comey three times in 13 months, and detailed staff and resources to a Benghazi investigation that cost the public almost $8 million—this Committee, from Inauguration Day until four weeks ago, was largely silent in terms of oversight.

We haven’t lifted a finger on election security.  Attorney General Sessions told us on November 14 that he has done nothingto secure the next election from threats at home and abroad. 

We have not once discussed the President’s abuse of the pardon power.  While the hurricane bore down on Houston, President Trump sidelined the Office of the Pardon Attorney to pardon a serial human rights abuser who bragged about running a concentration camp in Arizona. 

And we have not held a single hearing on allegations of obstruction of justice at the White House—not for lack of evidence, but because, in the Chairman’s words, “there is a special counsel in place examining the issue,” and “several other congressional committees are looking into the matter,” and the Committee “does not have the time” to conduct this critical oversight.  I ask my colleagues to keep those excuses in mind.

Now, with the year coming to a close, with the leadership of the Department of Justice finally before us, what do my Republican colleagues want to discuss?  Hillary Clinton’s emails.

Let me repeat that:  With all of these unresolved issues left on our docket, a week before we adjourn for the calendar year, the Majority’s highest oversight priority is Hillary Clinton’s emails and a few related text messages.

As we saw in our recent hearings with the Department of Justice and the FBI, my Republican colleagues seem singularly focused on their call for a second special counsel—and, failing that, on the need to investigate the investigators ourselves.

The White House has now joined the call by House Republicans for a new special counsel to investigate the FBI.  The President’s private lawyers have done the same.  I understand the instinct to want to change the subject after the Flynn and Manafort indictments—but this request is grossly misguided, for a number of reasons.

First, it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the special counsel regulations work.  

Some criminal investigations pose a conflict of interest to the Department of Justice.  The Russia investigation is such a case—because of the Attorney General’s ongoing recusal and because Department leadership assisted in the removal of Director Comey, among other reasons.  In cases like these, the Attorney General may use a special counsel to manage the investigation outside of the ordinary chain of command. 

But the key here is the criminal investigation.  That’s what special counsel does.  The Department cannot simply assign a special counsel to look at things that bother the White House.  There has to be enough evidence to have predicated a criminal investigation in the first place.  Then, and only then, if the facts warrant, can a special counsel be assigned to the case.

So far, there has been no credible factual or legal claim that anybody at the Department of Justice violated any law by deciding not to bring charges against Hillary Clinton or by attempting to meet with Fusion GPS.  In other words, there is no investigation to which the Department could even assign a new special counsel. 

Second, the list of grievances raised by the Majority for review by a new special counsel also seems wildly off the mark.

For example, there is nothing unlawful about Director Comey’s sitting down to draft an early statement about the Clinton investigation—nor would it have been unethical to outline his conclusions before the investigation was over, if the clear weight of the evidence pointed in one direction.

Nor is there anything wrong with FBI agents expressing their private political views via private text message, as Peter Strzok and Lisa Page appear to have done in the 375 text messages we received last night.  In fact, Department regulations expressly permit that sort of communication.

I have reviewed those text messages, and I am left with two thoughts. 

First, Peter Strzok did not say anything about Donald Trump that the majority of Americans weren’t also thinking at the same time.  And second, in a testament to his integrity and situational awareness, when the Office of the Inspector General made Mr. Mueller aware of these exchanges, he immediately removed Mr. Strzok from his team.

To the extent that we are now engaged in oversight of political bias at the FBI, this Committee should examine evidence of a coordinated effort by some agents involved in the Clinton investigation to change the course of the campaign in favor of President Trump by leaking sensitive information to the public, and by threatening to leak additional information about new emails after the investigation was closed.

On Monday, Ranking Member Cummings and I sent a letter to the Department asking for additional materials related to these leaks, as well as to claims that these efforts may have been coordinated with former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, and other senior figures in the Trump campaign.

Third, the President’s call for an investigation of the investigation is, at best, wildly dangerous to our democratic institutions.

On the one hand, the President’s old “lock her up” cheer seems quaint after a couple of guilty pleas by Trump associates.

On the other, as former Attorney General Michael Mukasey—no fan of Hillary Clinton—has said: the President’s continued threats to prosecute his political opponents is “something we don’t do here.”  If the President were to carry out his threat, “it would be like a banana republic.”

Finally, and most important, this investigation into the investigation cannot credibly be a priority for this Committee at this time.

I understand the instinct to want to give cover to the President.  I am fearful that the Majority’s effort to turn the tables on the Special Counsel will get louder and more frantic as the walls close in around the President.  But this Committee has a job to do.

President Trump has engaged in a persistent and dangerous effort to discredit both the free press and the Department of Justice.  These are the agencies and institutions under our jurisdiction.  Every minute that that our Majority wastes on covering for President Trump is a minute lost on finding a solution for the Dreamers, or curbing a vicious spike in hate crimes, or preventing dangerous individuals from purchasing firearms, or stopping the President from further damaging the constitutional order.

I hope my colleagues will use today’s hearing as an opportunity to find their way back to the true work of the House Judiciary Committee.  I thank the Chairman, and yield back the balance of my time.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

NADLER STATEMENT ON WIKILEAKS DOCUMENTS AND THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN

Today, CNN reports that candidate Donald Trump, his son Donald Trump, Jr., and others inside the Trump Organization received an email in September 2016 offering a decryption key and website address for hacked documents—weeks before WikiLeaks began publishing the contents of those documents online.  Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) of the House Judiciary Committee issued the following statement in response:

“This email is yet another sign that senior Trump campaign officials—including Donald Trump, Jr., and perhaps the President himself—may have accepted assistance and valuable information from the Russian government and its partners.  It is, of course, a crime to participate in a conspiracy to influence an election through the illegal misuse of various computer systems.  It is also a crime for a foreign national to give anything of value to a campaign for federal office.  At the very least, this email shows us that the Trump Campaign understood enough about these stolen documents to have immediately reported a crime to the FBI.  They did not, and now Donald Jr. refuses to answer questions about his extensive back-and-forth with WikiLeaks.

“It is unconscionable that that House Judiciary Republicans want to relitigate long-debunked Hillary Clinton conspiracy theories instead of this direct threat to our election system. This is part of a coordinated effort—spearheaded by the White House—to undermine and discredit individuals and institutions, such as Special Counsel Mueller and the FBI, which are investigating the President and his associates. I once again call on Chairman Goodlatte to begin the committee’s oversight work in this space without delay.”

House Judiciary Democrats have sent more than 20 letters to the Committee and GOP Leadership, and more than 40 letters to the White House and Department of Justice seeking oversight of Trump Administration misconduct, without any meaningful response. It is high time the House Judiciary Republicans join us in investigating obstruction of justice and related charges.

CNN offers correction, rewrite for Wikileaks-Trump story

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

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: House Judiciary Committee Approves Bipartisan Bill to Reform and Reauthorize Surveillance Program

Washington, D.C. – The House Judiciary Committee today approved by a vote of 27-8 the USA Liberty Act (H.R. 3989), a bipartisan bill that reforms and reauthorizes Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to protect both national security and Americans’ civil liberties. The bill was introduced last month by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), 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), Representative John Rutherford (R-Fla.), and Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet Subcommittee Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.). 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. A summary of the bill can be found, below. Below are statements from Judiciary Committee leaders on today’s Committee passage of the USA Liberty Act. Dean of the U.S. House of Representatives John Conyers, Jr. Ranking Member Conyers: “For months, we have examined Section 702 and have reached consensus that Section 702 should be reauthorized if it can be brought better in line with values like privacy, transparency, and due process. The USA Liberty Act does just that. I’m proud of our bipartisan work to move this bill forward. The USA Liberty Actprovides both security and privacy, and gives the government the tools it needs while bringing these programs back in line with our core values.  I look forward to continuing to work in a bipartisan fashion to ensure that this bill passes the House of Representatives.” Chairman Goodlatte: “The USA Liberty Act is a carefully drafted, bipartisan bill that protects Americans’ lives and their civil liberties. This bill reauthorizes a critical national security tool that keeps Americans safe, FISA Section 702, 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. “As FISA Section 702 is set to expire at the end of the year, the USA Liberty Act is the best legislative solution to preserve this important national security tool while also providing for much needed reforms. I urge the House to vote on the USA Liberty Act soon so that the intelligence community is able to identify and thwart terrorist plots while Americans’ constitutional rights are better protected.” Crime Subcommittee Chairman Sensenbrenner: “Finding the right balance between privacy rights and national security will be an ongoing challenge, especially because of the constant development of new and innovative technologies. It will require sustained attention from Congress and our intelligence communities, which is why the USA Liberty Act is critical. This bipartisan legislation balances privacy and security by requiring greater oversight, transparency, and accountability of the government’s surveillance powers while enabling our intelligence community to continue to utilize tools to keep Americans safe. It’s a measured balance between competing interests, and I look forward to it moving quickly through the legislative process.” Crime Subcommittee Ranking Member Jackson Lee: “The USA Liberty Act protects our national security while enhancing congressional oversight and transparency of the information gathering process. Nothing in this bill will undermine the intelligence community’s ability to gather foreign intelligence information or detect threats to the homeland. Instead, this bill will create a new framework of protections and transparency requirements to ensure that the government’s use of Section 702 accords with principles of privacy and due process.” Representative Rutherford: “FISA is essential to our national security, but we must ensure that we also safeguard Americans’ civil liberties. The USA Liberty Act improves privacy protections for our citizens, while also maintaining national security. This important legislation appropriately balances privacy and security by requiring greater oversight and accountability. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for supporting this important piece of legislation and look forward to it being voted on by the entire House.” IP Subcommittee Ranking Member Nadler: “The USA Liberty Act represents a real, bipartisan effort at instituting needed reforms to the 702 program, striking the appropriate balance of giving our intelligence agencies the tools they need to keep us safe while making sure individual liberty and privacy rights are better protected. It is critical that we are careful not to permit national security needs to outweigh and overrun the individual’s constitutional rights, which is why these reforms are so necessary and important. For the first time, the bill introduces a requirement for a warrant—based on probable cause—for criminal investigators to query 702-obtained information. In addition, the USA Liberty Act 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. This legislation makes substantial progress in reforming government surveillance under Section 702, and I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers for working in good faith on the USA Liberty Act. Congress will continue to play an important role in ensuring sufficient protections are in place for Americans’ individual privacy, and I look forward to being a part of that process going forward.” 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.

U.S. House Judiciary Committee USA Liberty Act - 11-08-2017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

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: After Texas Shooting, Conyers Renews Call For Judiciary Committee To Address Gun Violence

Washington, D.C. – After the horrific shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), renewed his call for the House Judiciary Committee to investigate gun violence in America and called for a private Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) briefing to be conducted as an official public hearing with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Ranking Member Conyers delivered the following remarks during today’s Judiciary hearing:

I hope that the @HouseJudiciary will take up the issue of #gunviolence, including an examination of #bumpstocks, as soon as possible. pic.twitter.com/vhYGMQYhx5

— John Conyers, Jr. (@RepJohnConyers) November 7, 2017

Mr. Chairman, before I discuss the important topic of today’s hearing, I want to raise another issue that we must unfortunately confront with urgency.

On Sunday, a gunman shot and killed 26 churchgoers in Sutherland Springs, Texas.  All of us were shocked by this horrific act and express condolences to the victims and families.

We now know that information concerning his court martial for domestic abuse should have been submitted by the Air Force to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.  He should have been prevented from purchasing firearms from licensed gun dealers via the Brady background check system.

Yesterday, before this information came to light, I wrote to the Chairman, requesting that the briefing planned for our Members tomorrow afternoon by ATF on the issue of bump stocks be expanded to include the FBI to discuss the background check issues related to Sutherland Springs, and that the briefing be conducted as a formal hearing, open to the public.

Now that we have even more information that there has been a breakdown in the implementation of our background check system, I ask that we include relevant officials from the Department of Defense and the Air Force. 

I believe we should proceed quickly to learn what happened, and the public deserves to hear answers directly. 

Therefore, I reiterate and expand my request concerning tomorrow’s briefing.

Yesterday, Ranking Member Conyers and Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Ranking Member Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) sent a letter, below, to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte to request that the Committee’s ATF briefing be conducted as a public hearing, and that the FBI be included to discuss background check issues. 

On November 1^st, Conyers  led a letter signed by every Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee to Chairman Bob Goodlatte, urging him to hold hearings on gun violence in America.

At an October 12^th markup, Ranking Member Conyers called on the House Judiciary Committee Majority to investigate gun violence in America.

On October 2^nd, immediately following the Las Vegas shooting, Ranking Member Conyers and Subcommittee Ranking Member Sheila Jackson Lee sent a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte to renew their call for hearings on these issues.

U.S. House Judiciary Ranking Member Conyers and Jackson Lee Second Request For Hearings On Gun Violence to... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: House Judiciary Committee Democrates Urge Goodlatte To Hold Hearings On Gun Violence

U.S. House Judiciary Democrats

Washington, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) today led a letter, below, signed by every democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, urging him to hold hearings on gun violence in America.

In their letter to Chairman Goodlatte, the Members wrote, “To be clear, we are not writing simply because of the high toll of death and injuries in Las Vegas, but because – despite progress we have made in decreasing crime in our country over the past two decades – on average, more than 11,000 people are murdered with guns in America ever year, and more than 60,000 individuals are injured in an attack.  Congress has a responsibility to find a way to help prevent tragedies like Las Vegas, as well as the daily incidence of gun violence in our communities.  That responsibility starts in this Committee, and we are disappointed that this Committee has not addressed this issue at all this Congress.”

At an October 12^th markup, Ranking Member Conyers called on the House Judiciary Committee Majority to investigate gun violence in America.

On October 2^nd, immediately following the Las Vegas shooting, Ranking Member Conyers and Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Ranking Member Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) sent a letter, below, to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte to renew their call for hearings on these issues.

Today’s letter 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). 

U.S. House Judiciary Ranking Member Conyers Letter to Chairman Goodlatte Request For Firearms Hearings - 11... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS & CUMMINGS Respond To Partisan GOP Investigation OF Former FBI Director Comey's Actions During 2016 Election

Top Dems:  New GOP Investigation Ignores Russia’s National Security Threat;

Uses Hillary Clinton to Distract From Lack Of Trump Oversight

Washington, D.C. (Oct. 24, 2017)—Today, Rep. John Conyers, Jr., the Ranking Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary and Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, issued the following statement in response to an announcement that Chairmen Trey Gowdy and Bob Goodlatte are opening a partisan Republican investigation into decisions made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2016:

“This new investigation is  a massive diversion to distract from the lack of Republican oversight of the Trump Administration and the national security threat that Russia poses. Ten months into the Trump Administration and House Republicans still have not held a single substantive oversight hearing on clear abuses by the President or his top aides.  That amounts to ten months of abdication of responsibility—a near total failure to question, investigate, or challenge the President or the White House, including on grave allegations of obstruction of justice.

“The Russian government continues to represent a clear and present threat to the United States and our democratic system, and we are the targets of near-constant cyberattacks by foreign adversaries.  Yet House Republicans have taken no concrete steps to secure our next election.  Apparently, House Republicans are more concerned about Jim Comey than Vladimir Putin.   

“If Republicans want to know why Director Comey discussed the investigation of Secretary Clinton publicly, maybe they should ask their own former Republican Chairman, Jason Chaffetz, who harassed the FBI for months to reveal public details about the case.  Rep. Chaffetz hauled Director Comey before the Oversight Committee to demand his public testimony, issued twelve unilateral subpoenas to Comey and others to force the production of internal investigative documents, and held five ‘emergency hearings’ directly before the election to harm Secretary Clinton’s presidential bid—all while completely ignoring the extremely troubling reports about Donald Trump and his campaign’s connections to the Russians. We must protect our democracy.”

Democratic Members have made repeated requests to Republican leadership to investigate these issues.

Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have written to Chairman Goodlatte 11 timesto request oversight hearings. These letters have gone unanswered and House Judiciary Republicans have so far blocked several resolutions of inquiry from reaching the House floor.

On May 16, 2017, all of the Democrats on the Oversight and Judiciary Committees sent a letter to Chairmen Gowdy and Goodlatte requesting that they launch an “immediate joint investigation” into whether President Trump and his top officials were attempting to obstruct the criminal, counter-intelligence, and oversight investigations conducted by the FBI, Department of Justice, and Congress into members of his presidential campaign and their contacts with Russian officials.

In addition, on January 12, 2017, the top Ranking Democratic Members of 22 House Committees sent a letter to Speaker Paul Ryan requesting that Congress evaluate all of then-President-Elect Trump’s global financial entanglements for conflicts of interest and constitutional violations—including in particular those involving Russian investors, business interests, and development partners.  

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©