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.©

U.S. House Committee On Ethics Statement of the Chairwoman Susan Brooks & Ranking Member Ted Deutch Regarding Representative John Conyers, Jr. 11-22-2017

STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRWOMAN AND RANKING MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON ETHICS REGARDING REPRESENTATIVE JOHN CONYERS, JR.

Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(g), the Chairwoman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Ethics (Committee) determined to release the following statement:

The Committee is aware of public allegations that Representative John Conyers, Jr. may have engaged in sexual harassment of members of his staff, discriminated against certain staff on the basis of age, and used official resources for impermissible personal purposes. The Committee Rule 18(a), has begun an investigation and will gather additional information regarding these allegations.

The Committee notes that the mere fact that it is investigating these allegation, and publicly disclosing its review, does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred, or reflect any judgment on behalf of the Committee.

In order to comply with Committee Rule 7 regarding confidentiality, out of fairness to all respondents, and to assure the integrity of its work, the Committee will refrain from making further public statements on this matter pending completion of its review.

U.S. House Committee On Ethics Statement of the Chairwoman Susan Brooks & Ranking Member Ted Deutch Regardi... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

‘Tis better to be vile than vile esteemed,
When not to be receives reproach of being,
And the just pleasure lost which is so deemed
Not by our feeling but by others’ seeing.
For why should others’ false adulterate eyes
Give salutation to my sportive blood?
Or on my frailties why are frailer spies,
Which in their wills count bad what I think good?
No, I am that I am, and they that level
At my abuses reckon up their own;
I may be straight, they they themselves be bevel.
By their rank thoughts my deeds must not be shown,
Unless this general evil they maintain:
All men are bad, and in their badness reign.

The Bard, , Sonnet 121

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Kathleen Rice Challenges Trey Gowdy To An Ethical Showdown

Kathleen Rice challenging Trey Gowdy
to an authoritative duel in U.S. House Ethics Committee

I do not like Meanies.

Kathleen Rice is acting like she has been officially annointed to represent the Meanies.

(Saddy face.)

Kathleen Rice attacked the U.S. House Ethics Committee members.

That was not just political, that was really mean.

Trey Gowdy just so happens to be one of the senior members of that committee.

I just so happen to love me some Trey.

Now, the Lady comes, hitherto, in a visually, nervous lust of power to accuse U.S. Representative Trey Gowdy of besmirching his ethical profession as a representative of law, in public testimony on CNN, which crosses multiple jurisdicitonal regions, even bodies of water, in the capacity of a representative of The United States, via internet and airwaves, archived in the Library of Congress, to call out the gentleman's decision making authority to be artificial, and thereof, his decisions, and, the decisions of the body to be arbitrary and capricious?

Daaaaaaaaammmnn, you got some hutzpah, gurl.

And something tells me you are neither very sophisticated in the history of the Ethics Committee nor its authority.

You must be under pressure about something.

Emails?

Real Estate acquisitions?

Child welfare?

FARA?

FEC?

Gurl, you know I know, you know, and probably, so does Trey.

Rep. Kathleen Rice: Ethics committee's accountability 'not real'

Rice's comments come on the tail of a growing list of members of Congress who have been named for sexual harassment, including Conyers and Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota.

Female lawmakers, staffers and interns have told CNN that there is a pervasive atmosphere of sexual harassment on Capitol Hill. Earlier this month, Reps. Jackie Speier, a California Democrat, and Barbara Comstock, a Virginia Republican, accused unnamed sitting male lawmakers of sexual harassment and misconduct, including an allegation that a male lawmaker exposed his genitals to a female staffer.

She went on to say that many of the accusations against members of Congress, like Democratic Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, who she has called on to resign, may not pass beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore may never be fairly adjudicated.

"We don't have a legal standard here. We're talking about the court of public opinion. We're talking about holding men accountable for their actions," Rice said. "And a lot of these men, against whom these allegations have been made, are never going to face their day in court. The victims in these cases are never going to have their day in court."

Washington (CNN) Rep. Kathleen Rice said that the congressional ethics committees being proposed as a way to investigate serial sexual assault offenders on Capitol Hill are "not real" and "not accountable."

Speaking on CNN's "New Day" Friday, Rice, a Democrat and former prosecutor, said that the ethics committee will not offer a level of true accountability to offenders.

"Saying that we're going to have these allegations against politicians go before an ethics committee that can sometimes take a couple of years, no offense to my colleagues who are on the ethics committee, that's not real. That's not real. And that's not accountability," Rice said.

Rice said that the main pitfall of the committees is it asks colleagues to judge colleagues.

"The way the system works is it is does not benefit -- there's no benefit to a woman who comes out and says, 'I'm being harassed.' There are only professional consequences," said Rice.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS Has Second Staffer Accuse Sexual Harassment

I bet that other woman is the sister of Cynthia Martin.

I bet she would be stressed being faced with charges of treason in the family, but hey, what do I know.

Oh, and Perkins Coie still sucks.

Stay tuned, on a mission...

There's Another W

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

oman Who Accused Rep. John Conyers of Sexual Harassment

Less than 24 hours after a report that Rep. John Conyers reached a settlement with a staffer who said she was fired from his office after rejecting his sexual advances, another sexual harassment allegation has come to light.

A former staffer who worked as a scheduler in Conyers’ office tried to file a lawsuit against him, his Chief of Staff Ray Plowden, and his district director Yolanda Lipsey, alleging Conyers repeatedly tried to make sexual overtures towards her, which perpetrated a hostile work environment, Buzzfeed reports. The staffer, who was not publicly revealed in the article, tried to file a sealed lawsuit, but the court would not let the complaint stay sealed, so she stopped the effort, according to Buzzfeed.

Buzzfeed obtained and published the court documents, which were filed in DC District Court in March. The documents allege that Conyers hired the former staffer in July 2015. Four months later — after his wife had filed for divorce, which she partially attributed to her husband’s decision to hire the staffer — she alleges that she began to notice “random comments and lingering touches,”but thought they were innocuous. They continued, she said, and she told the Chief of Staff twice, who ultimately told her to start documenting them. However, she alleges, they were occurring too frequently for her to document them every time. That April, she requested formal counseling from the Office of Compliance.

“From May 2016 until July 2016, Defendant Conyers continued to, repeatedly and daily, harass both physically and emotionally and inappropriately touch the plaintiff by rubbing on her shoulders, kissing her forehead, covering and attempting to hold her hand, suggesting that she come to Detroit, causing the plaintiff severe anxiety and chest pains”

She ultimately decided to go on medical leave because of the stress, and alleges that a staffer stole documents that included a resignation letter and forwarded them to Plowden, the Chief of Staff. She was ultimately terminated.

A spokesperson for Conyers told TIME, “the former staffer voluntarily decided to drop the case.”

#FollowTheWhiteRabbit

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: In Wake Of Trump Campaign Indictments & Russia Investigation Guilty Plea, Conyers Urges Goodlatte To Move In More Bipartisan Manner, Protect Special Counsel From Partisan Attacks

Conyers Expresses Concern about Efforts to Divert Attention from ongoing Russian Threat to our Elections

Washington, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) today sent a letter, below, to Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), calling for him to widen the scope of the investigation he launched last week with Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Trey Gowdy into decisions made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2016, to include the firing of former FBI Director James Comey, foreign interference in American elections, and related issues. 

The letter comes after Special Counsel Mueller reached a plea agreement with George Papadopoulos for making false statements to the FBI regarding Russian efforts to meet and coordinate directly with the Trump campaign, and issued a twelve count indictment against Paul Manafort and Richard Gates for false statements, money laundering, failure to register as a foreign agent, and conspiring against the United States.

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

In his letter to Chairman Goodlatte, Conyers wrote, “The circumstances call for extraordinary bipartisan cooperation.  Working together is the only way to reassure the American public of the credibility and fairness of our political, legal, and electoral processes…Based on our years of bipartisan, first-hand experience working directly with Mr. Mueller, we are uniquely positioned to ensure he is given the space and independence he needs to complete his important work on behalf of the American people.”

The House Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It also has jurisdiction over the Foreign Agents Registration Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

U.S. House Judiciary Ranking Member Conyers Letter to Chairman Goodlatte Calling To Widen Scope Of Foreign... 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.©

CONYERS, CUMMINGS, GOMEZ & LOFGREN Seek Immediate Hearings On President's Decision To End DACA

Washington, D.C. (Sept. 7, 2017)—Democratic leaders on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Committee on the Judiciary sent a letter, below, to their respective Chairmen, Reps. Trey Gowdy and Bob Goodlatte, requesting immediate congressional hearings on the impact of President Trump’s decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

“This action is cruel and heartless, and it is now up to Congress to reverse it,” the Members wrote.  “We believe it is critical for the American people to hear public testimony regarding the President’s decision, including the resulting economic costs and social harm to the nation.”  

Last Congress, the Oversight Committee held 11 hearings on issues related to immigration, and the Judiciary Committee regularly holds hearings on immigration issues.  Yet no full Committee hearings on the President’s termination of DACA have been scheduled to date.

The letter was signed by Oversight Committee Ranking Member Elijah E. Cummings, Oversight Committee Member Jimmy Gomez, Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr., and Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren.

Conyers, Cummings, Lofgren & Gomez Letter Requesting Oversight and Government Reform and Judiciary Hearings... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

CONYERS: House GOP Keeps Attacking The Intelligence Community, Ignoring Their Warnings

Washington, D.C. – Earlier today, three senior Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter, below, to the leaders of the U.S. intelligence community, arguing that “unauthorized and felonious disclosures . . . are increasingly casting a pall over not only our country’s intelligence apparatus but also the American people’s trust in the efficacy and integrity of the intelligence community.” 

House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) released the following statement in response:

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

“I do not condone the unlawful release of classified information by anyone, including to or from the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. 

“But, once again, the Majority has chosen to focus on the fire alarm and not on the fire.  Every day, we learn more about possible connections between the government of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump’s campaign for president.  Those connections raise the specter of a massive effort to undermine our democratic institutions.  Once again, the Majority chooses to ignore the warnings of the whistleblowers and journalists who bring us this information.  Every day that they complain about ‘felonious leaking’ and not collusion with a foreign adversary represents another missed or delayed opportunity to get to the bottom of Russia’s attack on our democracy.

“Recent events make it altogether clear that we must have an independent and bipartisan investigation of the substantive issues here—including but not limited to the string of Trump campaign officials who met with Russian officials, attempted to hide those meetings, and were forced to recant or resign when the truth became public.”

GOP Judiciary Letter To Intelligence Community 3-24-2017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

House Judiciary Committee Approves Bipartisan Prison Reform Legislation

Bill is part of the House Judiciary Committee’s criminal justice reform initiative

Washington, D.C.  – The House Judiciary Committee today approved by voice vote the Corrections and Recidivism Reduction Act (H.R. 759) to reform the federal prison system, strengthen public safety, enhance prison security, provide inmates the help they need, and protect civil liberties. This legislation is one of many bills that have been approved by the House Judiciary Committee as part of its bipartisan criminal justice reform initiative.

At the markup, the Committee adopted a bipartisan amendment in the nature of a substitute that was offered by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Ranking Member John Conyers (D-Mich.), Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee Ranking Member Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), Representative Cedric Richmond (D-La.), Representative Doug Collins (R-Ga.), Representative Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.),  Representative Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), and Representative Karen Bass (D-Calif.).

Below are statements from the authors of the legislation praising today’s Committee approval of the bill.

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

Ranking Member Conyers: “I am pleased that the Committee has continued its work on criminal justice reform legislation by approving a bipartisan bill to reform our federal prisons. This bill will provide a meaningful opportunity to many offenders to reduce their time in prison through successful participation in various programs that will reduce their risk of recidivism. For too long, our prisons have simply warehoused individuals whom we know will eventually return to society and, for their benefit and ours, it simply makes sense that we provide incentives for prisoners to be better prepared to re-enter and be productive members of their communities. Adoption of this bill by the Committee is a good first step toward making our federal prison system more humane, more effective, and less costly.  I look forward to House consideration of this and other criminal justice reform bills.”

Chairman Goodlatte: “Today the House Judiciary Committee approved another important component of its bipartisan criminal justice reform initiative. The Corrections and Recidivism Reduction Act makes meaningful reforms to the prison system that strengthen the safety of our communities and provide inmates the help that they need while in prison to help them better reenter society upon their release. I thank the many members that have worked on this bill and look forward to continue working on other issues facing the criminal justice system.”

Rep. Chaffetz: “It is not enough to be tough on crime. We have to be smart on crime. More than 95 percent of people that go to prison will be released. Our collective goal should be to lower the recidivism rates and prepare inmates to integrate back into our communities. We all benefit if inmates gain marketable skills rather than criminal insights during their sentence. This legislation will facilitate integration while saving taxpayers money.”

Crime Subcommittee Ranking Member Jackson Lee: “Recidivism is a multi-tiered problem with no easy answer. The legislation passed by the committee today is an excellent first step in the direction to helping former inmates. The bill reflects many of the provisions that I fought for including parenting skills and re-entry plans to name a few. Many factors go into a former inmate’s decision to re-offend after release. It is important to note, however, that there have been many studies showing prison programs systems which provide institutional programming have lower recidivism rates among those who are released. Prison programs such as anger management, vocational skills training, educational opportunities, and even trauma support groups are vital to ensuring inmates who are reintroduced to the general population have the life skills necessary to stay on the right path. I look forward to this bill passing the House and going to the President’s desk for his signature.”

Crime Subcommittee Chairman Sensenbrenner: “The Corrections and Recidivism Reduction Act is an important component of our broad criminal justice reform efforts. Ensuring prisoners make a smooth transition from incarceration back into the population is imperative for strong families, strong communities, and long-term success. This bill will reduce the amount of taxpayer money spent on our broken federal prison system, make neighborhoods safer, and provide individuals with the tools they need to stay out of prison and be productive members of society.”

Rep. Richmond: “Being serious about reducing the prison population starts with making the necessary investment to rehabilitate and prepare inmates to lead productive lives once they return home. Increasing access to proven recidivism risk reduction programs will equip them with life skills that help keep ex-offenders from falling back into the same bad choices that landed them in prison in the first place. I’m proud to join my colleagues in getting the federal government out of the business of warehousing inmates and into the business of reforming and rehabilitating people.”

Rep. Collins: “Reducing the likelihood of recidivism through these reforms will be a step toward ending the vicious cycle in which so many former inmates find themselves trapped. The transforming power of a second chance is something I have seen during my time in the ministry. Giving qualified, low-risk offenders increased access to rehabilitative programs during and after their sentences will ultimately help lead them to live productive lives outside prison and increase public safety. This legislation also includes a provision that I co-authored to protect the fundamental right of attorney-client privilege by ensuring that electronic communications are treated the same way as other forms of privileged communication between an inmate and their legal representative. I believe all Americans have a right to legal representation, and interfering with that would be a violation of their Constitutional rights. These common sense reforms will save taxpayers money, while making our criminal justice system more effective.”

Rep. Jeffries: “We have a badly broken criminal justice system in America that has decimated countless families and wasted millions of taxpayer dollars. This bill is a significant first step in the right direction with respect to encouraging rehabilitation, promoting successful re-entry and improving the efficient administration of government funding. The country will be a better place when this legislation is enacted into law.”

Rep. Gowdy: “H.R. 759 is an important step toward creating a smarter and more effective federal prison system. It incentivizes individuals to take steps to reduce their risk of ending up back in federal prison while implementing new policies to enhance public safety and prison security. It also protects inmates’ civil liberties by respecting attorney-client privilege in electronic communications. I thank my colleagues for their hard work on this bipartisan legislation and look forward to continuing to work with them to improve our federal prison system.”

Rep. Bass: “Restraining pregnant inmates, especially when they are giving birth, is barbaric. It is ludicrous to think that a woman prisoner giving birth would be at risk of escaping. I am glad that the final bill contains language that I authored that will prevent women prisoners from being restrained unnecessarily while they are pregnant or giving birth. Several states have already outlawed this practice, and the federal government should as well.”

Key Components of Corrections and Recidivism Reduction Act:

Strengthens Public Safety:

·         The Corrections and Recidivism Reduction Act implements a post-sentencing dynamic risk assessment system to determine an inmate’s risk of committing more crimes upon release from prison. Under the legislation, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) would utilize effective recidivism reduction programs and provide incentives for inmates to participate in those programs. Ultimately, inmates could earn credits toward an alternative custody arrangement – such as a halfway house or home confinement – at the end of their prison sentence. 

·         Renders criminals convicted of certain serious offenses ineligible for the alternative custody program, including dangerous sexual offenders, murderers, and others.

Enhances Prison Security:

·         The bill authorizes the Director of BOP to issue pepper spray to those employed in a prison above the medium security level.

·         The bill requires the Director of BOP to provide a secure storage area outside the secure perimeter for employees to store firearms or to allow for vehicle lock boxes for firearms.

·         The bill requires the Director of BOP to provide de-escalation training as part of the regular training requirements of correctional officers.

Provide Inmates the Help They Need:

·         The bill requires BOP to initiate pilot programs for youth mentorship and the training and therapy of rescue dogs.

·         It requires BOP to submit a report and evaluation of the current pilot program to treat heroin and opioid abuse through medication assisted treatment.

·         The bill extends the compassionate elderly release provision from the Second Chance Act that allows the prisoner to request for his or her compassionate release if he or she meets the requirements set out in the law.

·         The bill codifies BOP’s rules on using restraints on pregnant inmates, which generally prohibit the use of restraints on pregnant inmates except those who are an immediate and credible flight risk or threat of harm to herself, the baby, or others.

Protects Civil Liberties:

·         The bill prevents BOP from monitoring the contents of electronic communications to or from a prisoner in a federal prison facility and his attorney or other legal representative. The bill contains an exception when BOP obtains a court order to monitor electronic communications for the purpose of entering it into evidence, or use or disclose, the contents of the communications.

Learn more about the House Judiciary Committee’s criminal justice reform initiative here.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©