Congressman John Conyers, Jr – A Civil Rights Legend – Legacy Preserved

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Jolly Jerry Is Heckled

I don’t know who the heckler is...but he is my hero! Nadler was rattled! 😂

One of the best things to come from the election of @realDonaldTrump...was that he woke up the silent majority and showed America how to take the fight to the enemy!
pic.twitter.com/qrFqxKsd7V

— RedPillReport 🇺🇸 (@RedPillReport) February 2, 2020

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

House Dems: Russia hacking probe needs political 'safeguards'

Lawmakers say Trump’s dismissal of Russian hacking and his business investments could ‘threaten the impartiality’ of an investigation.

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

Top Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee are demanding intelligence officials put “safeguards” in place to ensure any investigation into Russian hacking is free of political influence ahead of President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration.

The lawmakers say Trump’s repeated dismissal of the Russian hacking along with his possible business investments in the county could “threaten the impartiality” of an investigation while he’s president.

The letter, sent to Attorney General Loretta Lynch and FBI Director James Comey, also calls on federal investigators to make public additional details about Russian attempts to undermine the election, including whether there is a criminal investigation and if so, when it started.

“We strongly and urgently request that safeguards be put in place — prior to the completion of the presidential transition — to ensure that any criminal investigation into these matters is conducted in an independent manner and free of improper partisan influence,” House Judiciary Committee ranking member John Conyers (D-Mich.) wrote Wednesday.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), top Democrat on the committee’s crime panel, also signed onto the letter, obtained by POLITICO.

“To the extent that this investigation extends to any U.S. persons — including any associate of President Elect Donald Trump — we ask that you confirm this as well,” they added.

Conyers and Jackson Lee also cite Trump’s potential conflicts of interest surrounding his business holdings, including possible financial ties to Russia, as the need for an independent investigation.

The Judiciary Democrats say any probe into Russian cyber warfare should be treated with just as much importance as the controversial investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

“These and other incidents concerning investigatory actions — or lack thereof — in the run up to the recent election have deeply shaken the reputation for fairness previously enjoyed by federal law enforcement and reinforce the need to appropriately handle any pending criminal investigation,” they write, citing Comey’s decision to publicly re-open the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s email practices days before the election.

Conyers and Jackson Lee also echo calls for an “independent and bipartisan commission” to fully investigate Russia’s actions in the run-up toNov. 8. The letter comes after growing demands from key senators for GOP leaders to establish a select congressional committee to dig into the issue.

President Barack Obama and other top intelligence officials have said Russia was behind the election hacking that led to the release of thousands of Democratic documents, including Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails and personal information for lawmakers and staffers, and resulted in the resignation of Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz just hours before the Democratic convention.

But the president-elect and some Republicans have dismissed allegations of Russia’s role in the document dumps and the country's attempts to sway voters in Trump’s favor ahead of Election Day.

“If Russia, or some other entity, was hacking, why did the White House wait so long to act? Why did they only complain after Hillary lost?” Trump tweeted last week. He’s also called the claims “ridiculous” and “just another excuse.” Director of National Intelligence James Clapper announced onOct. 7, more than a month before the election, that U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that Russia had conducted the hacking operations in an attempt to meddle in the election.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) has publicly sparred with top intelligence officials, saying they have refused to brief him and other members of the panel on the issue in recent weeks. Nunes last week announced plans for committee members to visit the intelligence agencies in January to learn more about the Russian investigation.

So far, top Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), have rejected requests for a separate probe, saying the committees with jurisdiction over cybersecurity can handle the investigation.

The Senate and House Intelligence Committees are taking the lead on investigating the issue but several other committees, including House Judiciary, have some jurisdiction.

Key lawmakers, including incoming Democratic leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.), have argued that a select panel is needed to head off problems from too many committees being involved.

McConnell again ruled out the idea of a special committee during an interview with a Kentucky PBS outlet Tuesday.

"It's a serious issue, but it doesn't require a select committee," McConnell said. "We already have a committee set up to do this."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/russia-hacking-probe-house-democrats-232855

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Dems pledge to fight Sessions nomination

Senate Democrats are pledging to fight Sen. Jeff Sessions's nomination to be attorney general, arguing the pick feeds into larger concerns they have about the Trump administration.

Democrats are raising questions about whether the Alabama Republican would be able to provide equal protection to all Americans, three decades after Sessions was blocked from a federal judgeship because of racism accusations that surfaced during his confirmation hearing.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/306810-dems-pledge-to-fight-sessions-nomination#.WC9wj2f2UQM.facebook

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cummings Calls on Chaffetz to Launch Inquiry into Trump’s So-Called “Blind Trust

Washington, D.C. (Nov. 14, 2016)—Today, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sent a letter to Chairman Jason Chaffetz requesting that the Oversight Committee immediately begin conducting a review of President-elect Donald Trump’s financial arrangements to ensure that he does not have any actual or perceived conflicts of interest and that he and his advisors comply with all legal and regulatory ethical requirements when he assumes the presidency.

November 14, 2016

The Honorable Jason Chaffetz

Chairman

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, D.C.  20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

            I am writing to request that the Oversight Committee immediately begin conducting a review of President-elect Donald Trump’s financial arrangements to ensure that he does not have any actual or perceived conflicts of interest and that he and his advisors comply with all legal and regulatory ethical requirements when he assumes the presidency.

            We have never had a president like Mr. Trump in terms of his vast financial entanglements and his widespread business interests around the globe.  Moreover, we have not had a presidential candidate in modern times who has refused to disclose his tax returns to the American people.  Mr. Trump’s unprecedented secrecy and his extensive business dealings in foreign countries raise serious questions about how he intends to avoid conflicts of interest as president.

            Press reports indicate that Mr. Trump will be relying heavily on his children to operate his financial empire, but these same individuals have played a significant role in his presidential campaign and continue to advise Mr. Trump on his transition team.  This is certainly not a “blind trust.”

Congress has put in place several laws to avoid financial conflicts of interest—both actual and perceived.  The Oversight Committee has direct jurisdiction over these financial interest laws and the White House.

For these reasons, I request that the Committee immediately begin a review of these issues and invite appropriate officials designated by Mr. Trump to hear from them directly about their plans.  It is critical that we conduct this review as soon as possible to ensure that these questions are answered prior to Mr. Trump assuming office.

            For the past six years, you and other Republicans in Congress have launched numerous investigations against President Obama and Secretary Clinton, and some of these have been used for partisan political purposes, as Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy admitted regarding the Benghazi Committee.

            Now that Republicans control the White House and Congress, it is incumbent on you and other Republicans to conduct robust oversight over Mr. Trump—not for partisan reasons, but to ensure that our government operates effectively and efficiently and combats even the perception of corruption or abuse.

                                                                        Sincerely,

                                                                        Elijah E. Cummings

                                                                        Ranking Member

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

The DNC Campaigned For Donald Trump

Before you dismiss me, as many have previously done when I promoted the concept that there was DNC money connected to Trump, take a moment to look at other social media reports explaining how the Democratic Party executed its "Pied Piper Strategy".

You All Know That The Clinton Campaign Deliberately Plotted To Get Trump Nominated, Right?

How the Hillary Clinton campaign deliberately “elevated” Donald Trump with its “pied piper” strategy

Learn more: BEVERLY TRAN: The DNC Campaigned For Donald Trump http://beverlytran.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-dnc-campaigned-for-donald-trump.html#ixzz4PkOr1YIn Stop Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare 

Clinton's Pied Piper Strategy (use media contacts to promote Trump) has backfired spectacularly. PDF of our leak: https://t.co/DAmWNq9K0f pic.twitter.com/R49V3TfMXC

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) November 9, 2016

"This memo is intended to outline the strategy and goals a potential Hillary Clinton presidential campaign would have regarding the 2016 Republican presidential field.  Clearly most of what is contained in this memo is work the DNC is already doing.  This exercise in intended to put those ideas to paper. "

Well, well, well, it looks as if we my have a bit of backroon collusion not just within the Democratic Party, but, also with some folks over there in the Trump camp and main stream media.

I wonder if there is a financial connection through the Clinton Foundation, CGI, via the DNC and Trump.

The plot thickens for the Congress.

Learn more: BEVERLY TRAN: The DNC Campaigned For Donald Trump http://beverlytran.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-dnc-campaigned-for-donald-trump.html#ixzz4PkOk8SXt
Stop Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare 

Wikileaks DNC "Pied Piper" Email Memo Strategy on GOP 2016 Campaign 150407 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Goodlatte Presses Justice Department on Secret Agreements with Top Clinton Advisors

Washington, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) today pressed Attorney General Loretta Lynch about a secret agreement to destroy the laptops of top advisors to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

As part of the House Judiciary Committee’s ongoing oversight of Secretary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State, the Justice Department provided a private review of certain immunity agreements entered into during the investigation. The immunity agreements mentioned secret side agreements between the Justice Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Beth Wilkinson, the lawyer representing Cheryl Mills, chief of staff and counselor to Secretary Clinton, and Heather Samuelson, senior advisor to Secretary Clinton. After reviewing the side agreements, the Committee has learned that the FBI agreed to destroy Mills and Samuelson’s laptops after inspecting them.

In his letter to Attorney General Lynch, Chairman Goodlatte calls on the Justice Department to provide information about the side agreements and answer the many questions they raise about the FBI’s investigation.

Goodlatte Presses Justice Department on Secret Agreements with Top Clinton Advisors Letter To Attorney Gene... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Fox News Reports on DOJ's Secret Immunity Agreements

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Lawmaker: Probe deleted Clinton emails cited in FBI report

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Republican chairman of the House committee investigating Hillary Clinton's email practices asked a federal prosecutor Tuesday to determine whether she or others working with her played a role in the deletion of thousands of her emails by a Colorado technology firm overseeing her private computer server in 2015.

The written request by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, and obtained by The Associated Press, is based on recent revelations from the FBI, which decided not to press for criminal charges after its own yearlong investigation.

Clinton and her longtime aide and lawyer, Cheryl Mills, told FBI investigators during questioning that they had no knowledge of the deletions. Those occurred separately from the email deletions overseen by the former secretary of state's legal team last year before she turned over 33,000 work-related messages to the State Department. The FBI's recently released summaries of its investigation did not offer any evidence contradicting their statements.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/house-panel-asks-prosecutor-probe-130722502.html

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CHAFFETZ, GOODLATTE OUTLINE CASE FOR PERJURY AGAINST CLINTON

 House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) sent a letter to U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Channing Phillips identifying several examples where Secretary Hillary Clinton’s sworn testimony before Congress is incompatible with evidence collected during the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) investigation into the Secretary’s private email server.

The letter is in response to a Department of Justice letter sent to Chairmen Chaffetz and Goodlatte last week saying the department will “take appropriate action as necessary” on the Chairmen’s request for an investigation into the matter.

Representatives Jason Chaffetz and Bob Goodlatte Letter to DOJ on FBI Investigation of Perjury by Hillary... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Referral for Clinton perjury probe could come next week

The House Oversight Committee is expected to send a formal request asking the FBI to open a criminal investigation into allegations that Hillary Clinton lied to Congress as soon as next week, a committee aide told The Hill.

Despite a vow Thursday from Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) to deliver a referral to FBI Director James Comey “in the next few hours,” committee leaders are still working on the request, the aide said.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/287023-referral-for-clinton-perjury-investigation-could-come-next-week

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Senior House Judiciary Democrats, Quad Caucus Chairs Question Impact of New Restrictive Voting Laws Learn more: BEVERLY TRAN: Senior House Judiciary Democrats, Quad Caucus Chairs Question Impact of New Restrictive Voting Laws

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

WASHINGTON- Today, senior Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee and the chairs of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC), Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC), and the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) issued a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch asking the Department of Justice to review the impact of recently implemented voting restrictions across the country.

On March 22, Arizonians in Maricopa County, the most populous county in the state, experienced abnormally longer lines at polling stations.  Several allegations have also been made that there were disproportionate waiting times for minority voters. Department of Justice officials have opened an investigation into whether civil rights were violated.

In the letter, the Members request, “…that the Civil Rights Division review the impact of recently implemented voting restrictions on primary elections to determine whether the Department should implement additional monitoring programs in preparation for the November general election.”

The number of polling stations in Maricopa County, which is more than 40 percent minority, has been reduced by seventy percent, from 200 to 60 locations since the last presidential election in 2012.

“During the North Carolina primary election on March 15, voters waited for up to four hours at inner-city polling places to cast their votes. The number of provisional ballots cast last month in the North Carolina presidential primary was almost double the number of provisional ballots cast in 2012,” said the lawmakers. “These are warning signs that we cannot, and should not, ignore. These incidents raise serious constitutional concerns under both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fifteenth Amendment.”

After the Supreme Court decision in Shelby v. Holder removed the preclearance requirement of Section V of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, there has been an increase in the number of restrictive voting laws. The Brennan Center for Justice reports that, since 2010, twenty-one states have passed restrictive voting laws. The enforcement of many of these laws disproportionately impacts low-income, minority, student, and elderly voters.

The letter, spearheaded by House Judiciary Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI), is signed by Ranking Member on the Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee Steve Cohen (D-TN); Ranking Member on the Crime Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX); Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA), Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus; Rep. G. K. Butterfield (D-NC), Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus; Rep. Linda Sánchez(D-CA), Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus; and Reps. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN), Co-Chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

U.S. House Congressional Letter to DOJ Regarding Impact of New Restrictive Voter Laws Nationwide Elections

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Legislator Calls for Clarifying Copyright Law

By LARRY ROHTER

Arguing that Congress has an obligation “to preserve fairness and justice for artists,” the senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee has called for a revision of United States copyright law to remove ambiguities in the current statute about who is eligible to reclaim ownership rights to songs and sound recordings.

“For too long the work of musicians has been used to create enormous profits for record labels, radio stations and others, without fairly distributing these profits to the artists,” said Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, who was chairman of the committee until January. Because “copyrights are a tool to be used by creators to earn a living from their work,” he added, it is important to ensure “a fair marketplace.”

When copyright law was revised in 1976, recording artists and songwriters were granted “termination rights,” which enable them to regain control of their work after 35 years. But with musicians and songwriters now moving to assert that control, the provision threatens to leave the four major record companies, which have made billions of dollars from such recordings and songs, out in the cold.

As a result the major record labels — Universal, Sony, EMI and Warner — are now fighting the efforts of recording artists and songwriters to invoke those rights. TheRecording Industry Association of America, which represents the interests of the labels, maintains that most sound recordings are not eligible for termination rights because they are “works for hire,” collective works or compilations created not by independent performers but by musicians who are, in essence, employees of the labels.

With years of costly litigation looming, groups that represent the interests of recording artists and songwriters said they found Mr. Conyers’s remarks encouraging. But given the issue’s legislative history any amendment process in Congress is likely to be long and complicated.

The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, whose more than 70,000 members include many recording artists and composers, said it was “deeply appreciative” of Mr. Conyers’s “continued focus in working to ensure that our copyright system recognizes the rights of artists for their creative contributions and which fairly compensates artists for the exploitation of their music.” In a statement the group’s national executive director, Kim Roberts Hedgpeth, said it looked “forward to learning more about any recommendations to enhance the rights of artists as they prepared to reclaim their rights in their musical works, and we are working to ensure that there is an effective system by which musical artists fully benefit from their rights under law.”

But the Republicans are the majority party in the House, and some lawyers and artist managers see them as more friendly to the record labels and other big media companies. For that reason the lawyers and managers have expressed doubts that a bipartisan agreement can be reached on the main issues relating to music copyrights, like defining who qualifies as the author of a work and under what circumstances, if any, a song or sound recording should be considered a work for hire.

“Since I’m going to have to be working with them, I don’t want to tell you they are conservative and corporate oriented,” Mr. Conyers said when asked about the Republican position. “That won’t help. I’ll be going to Lamar Smith after Labor Day to talk to him about this, about getting a little fairness into the entertainment industry,” he said, referring to his Republican successor as the committee’s chairman.

Mr. Smith, of Texas, declined a request for an interview. Instead, his staff issued a general statement in his name, saying that legislation that “stimulates U.S. job growth and furthers the interests of creators, innovators and consumers is a top priority of the Judiciary Committee,” and that Mr. Smith was personally committed to legislation that “protects America’s innovators.”

Those creators and innovators could presumably include both recording artists and songwriters. But Mr. Smith’s staff did not respond to a request to clarify his views or to arrange an interview with Republican staff members on the committee who might be able to explain the party’s position on termination rights and related copyright matters.

When Congress passed the copyright bill in 1976, it created an important exception to the general principle that the person who creates a work of art is its author. At the behest of book publishers and other companies that feared their interests would be adversely affected, the law declared that when a work has been “made for hire,” the employer, not an employee, should be considered its author.

The law generally defined a work made for hire as anything “prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment,” like a newspaper article. It also stated that “a work specially ordered or commissioned as a contribution to a collective work,” like a motion picture, a translation or an atlas, should be considered a work for hire. Sound recordings, however, were left off of that list.

But in 1999 language that would have explicitly included sound recordings as works for hire was inserted into an omnibus bill and was approved virtually without debate. A few months later the congressional aide reported to be responsible for that action, Mitchell Glazier, then the copyright counsel to the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, moved to the recording industry association to become its chief lobbyist, and he continues to work for the group.

“That amendment was essentially passed in the middle of the night,” said William F. Patry, a former law professor and congressional staffer who is the author of several books on copyright. Congressional procedure allows for such changes, but only if they are merely technical matters, he said, “and clearly this wasn’t technical.”

In response recording artists, led by Don Henley of the Eagles and the singer Sheryl Crow, mobilized to overturn the amendment, which would have given the record labels control over their master recordings in perpetuity. A year later the artists were able to persuade Congress to undo the work-for-hire language for songs and recordings, and that seemed to have settled the issue.

“We were concerned with a lot of issues in recording contracts that we considered to be unfair, and this was one of the most glaring,” Mr. Henley said in a recent interview. “Work for hire was never intended to apply to sound recordings. That came about because of movies and books,” he continued, and “sound recordings somehow got added to the list and then taken off again.”

But the recording industry group, which declined to make Mr. Glazier available for an interview, does not see it that way. “By its own terms the statutory language makes clear that the law on termination was simply being restored to its previous state, and that Congress’s action was to have no effect on its interpretation,” the group said in a written statement.

Neither the record companies nor the artists seems to be relishing a confrontation in court. For the labels, already reeling from the sharp decline in sales of CDs over the past decade, any definitive judicial ruling that is adverse could be especially costly.

“It’s not in anybody’s interests to have years and years of litigation,” said Lisa A. Alter, a lawyer with the New York City firm of Alter & Rosen who represents numerous artists or artists’ estates on copyright matters. “The intent of Congress was clearly to protect authors who make bad deals in their eagerness to get their work out there.”

Rep. Lamar Smith Wants Hearings To "Embarrass The President"

August 22, 2011 10:24 am ET — Matt Gertz

On Thursday, Roll Call reported that Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) was planning to use his House Judiciary Committee gavel this fall to promote a "jobs agenda." This would represent a significant shift for a committee that has largely been focused on radical attacks on undocumented immigrants.

But later that day, the Obama administration announced that it would begin reviewing the cases of the 300,000 illegal immigrants currently awaiting deportation and prioritize the expulsion of the more dangerous criminal violators, rather than targeting low-level immigration offenders for deportation.

Smith quickly abandoned his "jobs agenda," telling right-wing radio host Joe Pagliarulo that he was now planning to hold hearings on the subject with the avowed purpose of trying to "embarrass the President." Smith also suggested that the House Appropriations Committee would defund the administration's ability to implement their plan.

During his interview with Pagliarulo, Smith also repeatedly pushed the falsehood that the administration proposal constitutes "amnesty." In fact, while immigrants who are not deported may apply for work permits, the plan does not provide them with citizenship or even a path to citizenship.

SMITH: As to what our recourse is, what we can do, we can do a couple things, at least in the House where the Republicans are in the majority. We can conduct hearings, oversight hearings, we can pull in administration officials, make them testify under oath, find out what's going on, try to, frankly, embarrass the President and push back and get the American people on our side to push back against the administration. Secondly, the Appropriations Committee can defund any of these efforts, but unfortunately, on the appropriations level, you can only defund it one year at a time, so that's not a long-term solution. Frankly, Joe, the long-term solution is, if you don't like what the President is doing, you have an opportunity in a year and a half to change presidents, and that's ultimately where the answer is going to lie.

Listen:

Smith's call for hearings to "embarrass the president" comes on the heels of Rep. Darrell Issa's (R-CA)comment that his planned Oversight Committee investigation of trumped-up attacks on Obama's adherence to election law would make "good theater." House Republicans apparently prefer to use their committees to conduct partisan attacks, rather than to attempt to solve America's problems.

Conyers' Statement at the Hearing on the Oversight of the Department of Justice

**Follow us on Twitter @HouseJuddems**

Statement of House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr.

Hearing on “Oversight of the Department of Justice”

Tuesday, May 3, 2011, at 10:15 a.m.

2141 Rayburn House Office Building

               

                Attorney General Holder, welcome to the Judiciary Committee this morning.

               

The Attorney General is the nation's chief law enforcement officer.  He is responsible for enforcing the federal criminal laws, and overseeing the bureau of prisons, the FBI, and numerous additional sub-agencies.  The Justice Department also is responsible for defending civil actions against the United States, as well as enforcing the civil rights laws, the antitrust laws, the copyright laws, the bankruptcy laws, and the criminal components of the environmental and tax laws.

               

So his responsibilities are many and varied.  

            Now there has already been some criticism of Attorney General Holder’s decisions this morning.  And I expect we will hear some more before we are through, and I have no doubt it will come from both sides of the aisle.  Maybe even from this very chair . . .

               

But first let us consider a number of areas where the Attorney General has done our nation proud and truly lived up to the weighty responsibilities of his office.  Americans demand many things from their Attorney General - and more than anything else they want a chief law enforcement office who has the courage of his convictions, and makes the hard decisions fairly, honestly, and on the merits.  In Attorney General Eric Holder, we have just that.

               

As an initial matter, Mr. Holder has stood up for the rule of law in the area of national security.  He supported the end of torture, and released flawed legal memos on this subject. 

               

He has been the loudest voice in the Administration defending the competence and strength of our federal courts in terrorism cases.  And he has refused to be bullied by those – in this body and elsewhere – who demagogue such issues and pollute our discussion of national security issues with prejudice and fear and politics.  Eric Holder hasn’t won every one of these battles, but we should all be grateful that he has been fighting them.

               

And that fight remains necessary.  It has been just 36 hours ago since we learned Osama Bin Laden was dead.  Yet already many are turning away from the unity of the moment to the same old politics of fear – using even this momentous event to rehash tired old arguments about torture and Guantanamo Bay.  What a shame.  Is there really no issue on which we can be united as leaders and as a people?  Is nothing above politics in this town?

               

The death of Bin Laden should cause us all to stop and reflect on our role in the world and on the best path forward for our nation – it should not be trivialized as simply another round in the what many seem to see as the political game of national security.

               

Mr. Holder’s impact has not been felt in the national security field alone, of course.  Under his leadership, the Civil Rights Division has been reinvigorated.  He and Assistant Attorney General Perez have fought to expand its staff, to defend its budget, and to ensure that our civil rights laws are aggressively enforced on behalf of all Americans. And he has been especially vocal in defending the division against the numerous frivolous pseudo-scandals that political critics of the Administration seem to endlessly dredge up.

               

It often falls to the Attorney General to make tough decisions on controversial matters.  And Mr. Holder has proven time and again he is willing to make those calls on the merits, even when he knows that the right thing to do on the facts and the law is unpopular.  And even when he knows the legally necessary choice will expose him to brutal political attacks. 

             

From DOMA to the Arizona immigration legislation to the Muslim teacher in Illinois forced to quit her job to make pilgrimage, Eric Holder’s Justice Department has consistently made tough, honest choices in defense of our constitutional values.

               

Finally, the Attorney General has shown on numerous occasions that he trusts his people, and is willing to let his US Attorneys and frontline prosecutors follow the facts and law where they lead.  In the critical case of torture, this has meant empowering the special prosecutor John Durham to review the facts and circumstances of US interrogations free from political interference.  That too has not been a popular decision, but it was a necessary one, and a brave one as well.

            

Now of course, there are also areas where I see issues rather differently than the Attorney General. Let me briefly mention a few of these as well.

               

After the worst economic upheaval of a generation, and with millions of Americans having lost so much, it has become a new scandal that there has not been a single prosecution of any high ranking Wall Street leader or firm.  The systemic abuses at the heart of the economic collapse – those foisted on our economy by Wall Street barons and the like – have gone unpunished.  This raises the concern that, without real accountability, those who really need to change their ways may not learn the right lessons from our recent calamity.

                The Department’s approach to crack cocaine cases under the Fair Sentencing Act also unfortunate.  That the Department would continue to seek extreme sentences that have been rejected as a policy matter by both the executive and legislative branch makes no sense.  More needs to be done to ensure that so-called “pipeline” cases are handled in a just manner.

               

In the area of antitrust enforcement and merger review, I have been consistently more impressed by the rhetoric coming out of the Department than by its actions.  As our economy becomes more and more dominated by global mega-firms, there has been just the merest trickling of monopolization cases.  And every major merger that has come in through the Justice Department’s front door has made it out alive – as the record stands now, the next large merger the Department actually seek to block will be the first.

Finally, in the national security area, the Department’s approach to the State Secrets privilege remains deeply troubling.  While the Department has been far more transparent of late than in the past, and I appreciate the State Secrets report recently transmitted to our Committee, its actual decision-making remains flawed.  This privilege is a threat to the separation of powers, and to the right of every citizen to lawfully fight back against government abuse and must be reined in.

Thank you very much Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

###