Sessions DOJ to Release Documents Related to Fast and Furious

Today, the Trump-Sessions Department of Justice announced that it will release documents related to the Obama-Holder DOJ's disastrous "Fast and Furious" program:

Today, the Department of Justice entered into a conditional settlement agreement with the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and will begin to produce additional documents related to Operation Fast and Furious. The conditional settlement agreement, filed in federal court in Washington D.C., would end six years of litigation arising out of the previous administration’s refusal to produce documents requested by the Committee. 

In announcing the settlement, Attorney General Sessions said: 

“The Department of Justice under my watch is committed to transparency and the rule of law. This settlement agreement is an important step to make sure that the public finally receives all the facts related to Operation Fast and Furious.”

Katie Pavlich reminds us of the unfortunate and tragic history of these documents:

The documents were previously withheld by Attorney General Eric Holder, who was voted in civil and criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to turn them over. President Obama invoked executive privilege in June 2012 to prevent their release just hours before the contempt vote was held. . . . 

Operation Fast and Furious was a secret ATF program, overseen heavily at the highest levels at the Department of Justice, which took place between September 2009 and December 2010. ATF agents repeatedly and knowingly allowed individuals working for Mexican cartels to traffic thousands of AK-47s, .50 caliber rifles and handguns into Mexico. The operation ended in 2010 when [Border Patrol] Agent [Brian] Terry was murdered and years of coverups surrounding his death and the extent of the operation ensued. Hundreds, if not thousands of Mexican citizens have been murdered as a result of the U.S. government putting guns into the hands of narco-terrorists and a number of firearms trafficked during the operation have been found at additional crime scenes in the United States.

Yet, according to former President Obama, his administration had no embarrassing scandals and was the "most transparent administration in history."  How refreshing it is to have an Attorney General and DOJ that are actually committed to transparency and respecting Congress' role of oversight over the Executive Branch, instead of only paying lip service to these values while trying to cover their misdeeds.

DOJ Announces New Cybersecurity Task Force

Yesterday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the creation of a new cybersecurity task force at the Department of Justice:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has ordered the creation of the Justice Department’s Cyber-Digital Task Force, which will canvass the many ways that the Department is combatting the global cyber threat, and will also identify how federal law enforcement can more effectively accomplish its mission in this vital and evolving area. 

“The Internet has given us amazing new tools that help us work, communicate, and participate in our economy, but these tools can also be exploited by criminals, terrorists, and enemy governments,” Attorney General Sessions said.  “At the Department of Justice, we take these threats seriously.  That is why today I am ordering the creation of a Cyber-Digital Task Force to advise me on the most effective ways that this Department can confront these threats and keep the American people safe.” 

The Task Force will be chaired by a senior Department official appointed by the Deputy Attorney General [Rod Rosenstein] and will consist of representatives from the Department’s Criminal Division, the National Security Division, the United States Attorney’s Office community, the Office of Legal Policy, the Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties, the Office of the Chief Information Officer, the ATF, FBI, DEA, and the U.S. Marshals Service. . . . The Task Force will be responsible for issuing a report to the Attorney General by the end of June.  

The Attorney General has asked the Task Force to prioritize its study of efforts to interfere with our elections; efforts to interfere with our critical infrastructure; the use of the Internet to spread violent ideologies and to recruit followers; the mass theft of corporate, governmental, and private information; the use of technology to avoid or frustrate law enforcement; and the mass exploitation of computers and other digital devices to attack American citizens and businesses.  The scope of the Task Force’s report is not limited to these categories.

Attorney General Sessions realizes that, despite the media attention on alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election (and indeed, almost every story on this task force has a headline about its study of efforts to interfere with our elections), the cybersecurity threat America faces from bad actors is much broader.  As he says in the memorandum creating the task force, after noting the pervasiveness of technology in the modern world:

Indeed, the scale of this cyber threat, and the range of actors that use cyber attacks and intrusions to achieve their objectives, have grown in alarming ways. . . . Most of the pressing cyber threats that our nation faces transcend easy categorization.  

We look forward to seeing this task force's report.  Unlike many efforts championed by the liberals to respond to allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election, it will provide guidance and potential solutions that are helpful to state and local election officials without usurping their important role in election administration, will complement the important cybersecurity work being done by election officials, will not create a new permanent federal bureaucracy, and will not limit law-abiding Americans' rights on the Internet.   

Trump DOJ Righting Wrongs of Viewpoint Discrimination by Obama's IRS

The Trump Department of Justice under Attorney General Jeff Sessions continues to restore the rule of law and undo years of politicization of DOJ, and the entire Executive Branch, that occurred under President Obama.  For example, consider last week's settlement with Z Street, one of the many organizations in which the IRS engaged in viewpoint discrimination when evaluating its application for recognition of tax exempt status.  Z Street's challenge to the IRS' discrimination was the first "IRS scandal" case filed, back in August 2010.  

The head of the DOJ's Tax Division and RNLA member Richard Zuckerman stated:

“Tax exemption eligibility should be based on whether an organization’s activities fulfill requirements of the law, not a group’s policy positions or the name chosen to reflect those views,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Zuckerman. “The attorneys at the Department of Justice work hard to ensure that all Americans receive equal treatment under the law.  Today’s settlement further illustrates this commitment.”

This is a remarkably refreshing view from DOJ, respecting the rule of law instead of liberal policy objectives.  The Founder of Z Street, which seeks to educate Americans about issues relating to Israel and the Middle East, wrote a disturbing account in the Wall Street Journal regarding her organization's discriminatory treatment by the Obama IRS:

[T]he application [filed in December 2009] languished. In late July 2010, an IRS agent truthfully responded to our lawyer’s query about why processing was taking so long: Z Street’s application was getting special scrutiny, the agent said, because it was related to Israel. Some applications for tax-exempt status were being sent to a special office in Washington for review of whether the applicants’ policy positions conflicted with those of the Obama administration. . . .

Now we know the truth, and it’s exactly as bad as we thought. IRS documents—those they didn’t “lose” or otherwise fail to produce—reveal the following:
• Our application was flagged because Z Street’s mission related to Israel, a country with terrorism. Therefore, an IRS manager in our case said in sworn testimony, the IRS needed to investigate whether Z Street was funding terror.
• Some applications for tax-exempt status were indeed being sent to IRS headquarters in Washington for more intense scrutiny. They were selected because of the applicants’ viewpoint.
• In August 2010, three other Jewish organizations applying for tax-exempt status were asked by the IRS to “explain their religious beliefs about the Land of Israel.” 

Our own investigation disclosed that between 2009 and 2016, while Z Street’s application was stalled, the IRS needed no special scrutiny to grant numerous applications for tax-exempt status that explicitly proclaimed donations would be spent in Gaza—a territory formally under the jurisdiction of Hamas, which the U.S. State Department designates as a terror organization. 

While claiming to be investigating Z Street’s funding of terror, the IRS never asked how or where Z Street spent its money. The IRS ultimately granted Z Street’s application, in October 2016, without asking anything about terror, or money, or anything else it hadn’t known in 2010.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus went on to explain how the Obama Administration's unofficial policy positions on Israel influenced her organization's treatment by the IRS, even though it only sought to educate Americans and spend its funds in America, and the immense damage wrought to her fledging organization by the IRS' seven years of delay.  The proposed consent order contains more details about the IRS' treatment of Z Street.

While Z Street and the other organizations against which the IRS discriminated because their viewpoints differed from the Obama Administration's can never have the lost years of fundraising, activity, and advocacy back, we are grateful that the Trump-Sessions DOJ is taking steps to recognize the wrongs committed by the IRS, end the interminable litigation, and let these non-profits move on to focus on their missions.

House Intel Memo with Concerning Omissions to FISA Court Released

Earlier today, President Trump declassified a House Intelligence Committee memorandum regarding "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation" that has been the subject of the recently trending social media hashtag #ReleasetheMemo.  Key parts of the memo include:

This memorandum provides Members an update on significant facts relating to the Committee's ongoing investigation into the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and their use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) during the 2016 presidential election cycle.  Our findings, which are detailed below, 1) raise concerns with the legitimacy and legality of certain DOJ and FBI interactions with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), and 2) represent a troubling breakdown of legal processes established to protect the American people from abuses related to the FISA process. . . . 

Due to the sensitive nature of foreign intelligence activity, FISA submissions (including renewals) before the FISC are classified.  As such, the public's confidence in the integrity of the FISA process depends on the court's ability to hold the government to the highest standard--protecting the rights of Americans, which is reinforced by 90-day renewals of surveillance orders, is necessarily dependent on the government's production to the court of all material and relevant facts.  This should include information potentially favorable to the target of the FISA application that is known by the government.  In the case of Carter Page, the government had at least four independent opportunities before the FISC to accurately provide an accounting of the relevant facts.  However, our findings indicate that . . . material and relevant information was omitted. 

The "dossier" compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. . . . Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele's efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.

RNLA Co-Chair Joanne Young stated in response: “This memo contains disturbing details from both a political and a legal perspective. According to the memo, attorneys from the Department of Justice misrepresented facts to the FISA court, which is especially troubling as filings with it are classified and ex parte, so there is no opportunity to defend against the charges."

While there are many legal issues involved in the subject of the memo and it will be hotly debated in the coming weeks, one thing is certain (as noted by Dan McLaughlin of National Review):

[W]ithin those narrow confines, it does make a persuasive case – pending any detailed rebuttal by its partisan Democratic critics – that flimsily-corroborated Democratic Party campaign opposition research succeeded in influencing law enforcement to spy on a U.S. citizen involved in the political process at the height of a presidential campaign. That may not be an enormous scandal in size, but it is, if true, a scandal.

To his credit, Attorney General Jeff Sessions released a statement in response to the memo that took the actions outlined in the memo seriously and indicated that DOJ takes its responsibility to the American people seriously and will determine what happened.  

AG Sessions Restoring the Rule of Law at DOJ

Carrie Severino wrote a lengthy summary of what Attorney General Jeff Sessions has done to restore the rule of law at the Department of Justice in less than a year:

Since Attorney General Jeff Sessions was confirmed to head the Department of Justice (DOJ) nearly one year ago, he has been making an impact in which the rule of law has more of a place than it ever did in the Obama DOJ under Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch. . . .  

Also pernicious was the Obama administration’s practice of requiring settling parties to pay third-party organizations, many of them left-of-center, that were not involved in the underlying cases or harmed by the conduct of defendants. The practice closely resembled a DOJ-imposed slush fund for liberal interest groups. Sessions asserted, “Nowhere does the Constitution grant unelected attorneys or political appointees the power to effectively appropriate and distribute funds based on their political alliances.” DOJ put an end to third-party settlements in June. . . .

Besides its work to revive adherence to the Constitution’s provisions regarding the structure of the government, this DOJ has shown that its dedication to the rule of law extends to the direct protection of individual rights. Sessions issued guidance to all executive departments and agencies summarizing 20 principles of religious liberty and instructing them to “vigorously enforce Federal law’s robust protections for religious freedom.” . . . The current DOJ also has taken positions in litigation not involving the federal government that aggressively advance First Amendment rights and that would have been unthinkable a year ago. . . . As a contrast to Eric Holder’s 2013 suit to block Louisiana’s school voucher program, which primarily aided the state’s poorest minority children who were trapped in substandard schools, consider how Sessions’ fidelity to existing law has enabled him to pursue new milestones in advancing civil rights. DOJ is currently reviewing a complaint from over 60 organizations accusing Harvard University of discriminating against Asian-American applicants. Months earlier, it secured a 49-year sentence in the first case prosecuted under the Hate Crimes Prevention Act for the murder of a victim due to gender identity and deployed an attorney to assist in a state prosecution following the murder of a transgender student. . . .

Attorney General Sessions himself described on Tuesday how enforcing the law and increasing respect for law enforcement has dramatically reduced the violent crime rates that had risen under the Obama DOJ.

Ms. Severino concludes by noting that these changes, and the other changes described in the article, are only possible because Attorney General Sessions is deeply committed to the rule of law:

Like the rest of Sessions’ initiatives as attorney general, this recent development flows from his commitment to the rule of law, whether it diminishes unilateral executive action in deference to the elected officials who bear lawmaking responsibility under the Constitution or vigorously enforces laws duly enacted by constitutional process. What a welcome change from the previous DOJ.

We thank Attorney General Sessions for his commitment to the rule of law.  The RNLA will explore the many ways the Trump Administration is restoring the rule of law at its annual National Policy Conference on Friday, April 27, in Washington, DC.  More information and tickets are available here.

Part 2: Top Blog Posts of 2017 - Democrats' Unprecedented Obstructionism

Last Friday, we had the top posts of the year, numbers 10-6.  Today, it is the top 5 posts that unfortunately have a common theme:  Democrats' hyper-partisan obstruction of the Trump Administration.  This is so over the top it would be funny if it was not hurting the governing of our country.   The number one post shows the complete hypocrisy of the Democrats opposition to the Trump Administration.  They are hurting good people for the sake of appeasing their far-left base. 

5.  April 6: “Today, McConnell Ended What Schumer Began with Estrada Filibuster”  Excerpt:

There was much hand wringing over Senator McConnell being forced to invoke the constitutional option today to end the first successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee, but partisan filibusters of judicial nominees are not a longstanding Senate tradition.  It began with now-Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's filibuster of Miguel Estrada (who was opposed in large part because he was a conservative Latino).

4.  August 18: “ATL Publishes Vulgar Attack on Former Gorsuch Clerk”  Excerpt:

Perhaps the most telling point in the whole piece is that constitutionalist, textualist, and originalist are just buzzwords used by dumb people, not fully formed, mainstream theories of constitutional and statutory interpretation even adopted by Justice Elena Kagan.  While the crude personal attacks on Mr. Davis are reprehensible, this point shows that what he is really being attacked for is being a conservative who respects the Constitution.  We thank Mr. Davis for his service to our country, even in the face of such vulgar, inappropriate criticism.

3.  November 8: “Sen. Sasse Dismantles ABA as Neutral Arbiter of Judicial Qualifications”  Excerpt:

I'm referring specifically to the smear campaign of the ABA against Steve Grasz, a qualified public servant who has been nominated by the President to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. . . . First, we should discuss the two people who interviewed Mr. Grasz and recognize that, unfortunately, they are blatant partisans with a sad track record of hackery. Second, the ABA Is trying to paint Mr. Grasz as an extremist simply because he did his job as the Chief Deputy Attorney General of Nebraska and defended Nebraskans and Nebraska laws that wanted to outlaw the most barbaric of abortion practices — partial-birth abortion. Third, we should talk about the obvious bigotry of cultural liberals evident in their interview process of Mr. Grasz when they asked him repeated questions about nonlegal matters that had nothing to do with the claims of competence of the ABA. 

2.  April 25: “Democrats Continue to Oppose, Delay and Obstruct Non-Controversial, Qualified Nominees”  Excerpt:

He has the support of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and was an Obama appointee.  He is the longest serving U.S. Attorney in the nation.  Yet, Rod J. Rosenstein has waited almost three months to finally get a chance to be confirmed as Deputy U.S. Attorney General, the number 2 position in the Department of Justice.  Cloture had to be invoked as six Democrats opposed him even getting an up or down vote!

1.    1. February 9: “Senator Nelson Shows His True Feelings after Bowing to Extremist Pressure” (regarding Senator Nelson’s applause following Attorney General Sessions’ confirmation vote) Excerpt:

The Democrats have become totally beholden to extremist elements in their own party. Never has that been more clear than on their recent vote on the confirmation of their colleague Senator Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General.  All Democrats--except Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia--voted against him.  Yet, many Democrat Senators can be seen applauding Sessions' confirmation as Attorney General. 

The Democrats have taken obstruction and partisanship to a new level in their efforts to undermine the American government. 

Part 1: Top Blog Posts of 2017 - Gorsuch and Fake Election Law News

Today and next Friday, the RNLA will highlight the top blog posts of the Republican Lawyer Blog for 2017.  This is part 1: Top RepLawyer Posts for 2017, numbers 10-6.  Today’s post will focus on Justice Neil Gorsuch and election law.  No reasonable lawyers’ group can look back on 2017 and not celebrate the confirmation of Justice Gorsuch.  On elections, it is unfortunate that Democrats continue to use the race card and fight against those trying to make elections more open, fair, and honest for all.  

10.  April 10: "Congratulations to Justice Gorsuch"  Excerpt:  
RNLA Co-Chair John Ryder agreed: “Judge Gorsuch is a worthy successor to Justice Scalia. I am delighted that President Trump has delivered on his promise to the American people to nominate someone who fits the mold of Justice Scalia. I am equally pleased that the Senate saw fit to honor the will of the people by confirming Judge Gorsuch."

9.  January 13: "EAC Commissioner Questions Extension of DHS' Power to Elections"  Excerpt:  
Election Assistance Commissioner Christy McCormick stated: “This action politicizes elections. There is a reason that the Founding Fathers gave the authority of conducting elections to the States. There is a reason that when Congress set up the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), they made it a bipartisan, independent agency and gave it no regulatory authority.” 

8.  March 27: "ICYMI, Study Showing Voter ID Suppressed Minority Turnout Was ‘Fake News’"  Excerpt:
“Many federal courts have been asked to do the same: Find a causal link between voter ID and intentional decreases in minority turnout,” [Logan Churchwell, spokesman for the Public Interest Legal Foundation] said. “All eventually failed. Despite this, too many in the media are willing to report an initial study as gospel before peer reviewers can weigh in. It should have struck many news editors weeks ago that it took until 2017 to provide proof to a belief that could have been confirmed a decade ago, if true.”

7.  January 5: "Sessions' ‘Racist’ Vote Fraud Prosecution Was to Protect Black Voters' Voting Rights"  Excerpt:
“As Craig Donsanto says, this was a prosecution intended to preserve and protect the right to vote, something to which he dedicated his entire professional career. Anyone who claims this was a racist prosecution by Jeff Sessions is, according to Donsanto, “a liar and a political opportunist of the worst kind.”

6.  April 18: "Justice Gorsuch Asks at First Oral Argument, Why Not Follow ‘Plain Text of the Statute'?"   Excerpt:  
Gorsuch focused his first line of questioning on the wording of the statute, asking the employee’s attorney, Christopher Landau, several questions about where in the law it says district courts have jurisdiction to hear civil service claims.   “Wouldn't it be a lot easier if we just followed the plain text of the statute?” asked Gorsuch.

Look for part 2 next Friday.  Happy Holidays!

President Trump Had Considerable Success Restoring The Rule of Law In 2017

RNLA Co-Chair Joanne Young wrote today in The Daily Caller about how successful President Trump has been restoring the rule of law in 2017.  It began with Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Department of Justice:

At every turn, Sessions has had to fight against entrenched, liberal career employees and Obama holdovers. But Sessions has remained dedicated. He has increased focus on vigorous and equal enforcement of the laws to reduce violent crime, ended third-party settlement practices that directed taxpayer dollars to liberal outside groups, and defended the rule of law in litigation, such as supporting voter ID laws, free speech, and religious liberty. The process of restoring the rule of law to the Department of Justice will take years, but President Trump and Attorney General Sessions have had an effective first year.

And continued with Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and other exemplary new federal judges:

At just 50 years old, Justice Gorsuch will serve on the nation’s highest court for many years to come. In his 10 years on the Tenth Circuit, he had demonstrated a commitment to adhering to the text of the Constitution, statutes, and regulations, even when it led to unfortunate results on the facts. He had shown his dedication to the principle that it is for the legislature to decide policy and enact it in law and for judges to apply that law, without inserting their own policy preferences. While his commitment to the rule of law and textualism has earned him the scorn of liberals, it protects the right of the American people to be ruled by the law written by their elected representatives, not by the whim of unelected judges.

President Trump has also started rolling back overreaching regulations and unlawful policies across the Executive Branch:

On taking office, President Trump immediately began rolling back the regulatory overreach that was the hallmark of the Obama years. On January 30, he directed that when an agency promulgated a new regulation in 2017, it had to identify two regulations to repeal. He has periodically directed agencies to review the permissibility of particular rules or interpretations that have impermissibly expanded the scope of certain laws and regulations, such as when he directed the Environmental Protection Agency’s Administrator to review the “Waters of the United States” rule on February 28. 

As the agency personnel nominated by President Trump have taken office, they have worked to review and undo the harmful and expansive interpretations of the Obama years in their agencies. For example, in October, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt ended the “sue and settle” practices whereby radically liberal environmental organizations controlled how the EPA interpreted its own rules through litigation, often being paid with taxpayer money for their efforts. . . . Or consider Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, [whose] proposal to undo the FCC’s own regulatory overreach of the Obama years, “net neutrality,” was approved last Thursday, despite personal, racially tainted attacks against Pai and his family by outraged liberals. . . . Net neutrality was imposed through an FCC power grab whereby, after 20 years of bipartisan agreement over the Internet, the FCC unilaterally reinterpreted its own governing laws without congressional authorization, despite the previous FCC Chairman admitting that he did not know how the new rule would be interpreted.

Ms. Young concludes by pointing to the very real world consequence of decreased and clearer regulations: a booming economy.  Likewise, judges and a Department of Justice that respect the rule of law protect the rights of all people, ensuring a brighter future for all Americans.

ICYMI: DOJ Finally Enters Litigation Against Guam's Racially Discriminatory Voting Law

A week ago Tuesday, the Department of Justice finally decided to fight against a blatantly racially discriminatory voting law in Guam, as Hans von Spakovsky described:

I have written numerous updates about the voting-rights lawsuit that Davis, a retired Air Force officer, filed back in 2011 against the territory of Guam . . . . Guam refused to allow Davis, a long-time resident of Guam, to register to vote for a plebiscite on the future of the territory because he is white and not Chamorro, the racial designation given to the natives who originally inhabited Guam.

The personnel changes made by President Trump, including Jeff Sessions as Attorney General and John Gore as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, were necessary for the Department of Justice to uphold the law and the rule of law:

After Guam lost in March, it appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On November 28, after eight years of studied indifference, the U.S. Justice Department under Attorney General Jeff Sessions finally did the right thing: It filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit supporting Arnold Davis.  

DOJ’s brief, which was filed by John Gore, the acting assistant attorney general of the Civil Rights Division, argues that “Guam’s plebiscite law intentionally discriminates based on race.” It directly violates Supreme Court precedent set in Rice v. Cayetano, a 2000 decision in which the Court threw out a similar Hawaii law. DOJ points out that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments both apply to Guam; the fact that it is a territory does not deprive its residents of those constitutional protections. The brief asks the Ninth Circuit to uphold the district court’s decision. . . .

The discriminatory law had been ignored for 8 years by the Obama DOJ because the voters the law discriminated against were the wrong color: 

The Obama administration refused to enforce federal law barring racial discrimination in voting, housing, employment, and education on a race-neutral basis. The Holder/Lynch Justice Department didn’t care if you were being discriminated against unless you were a member of one of its favored groups, a distinction that does not exist in our anti-discrimination laws. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, as well as federal statutes such as the Voting Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act, protect all Americans from racial discrimination.

Because DOJ had abdicated its duty to enforce the laws, this long case to vindicate Mr. Davis' voting rights has been fought by a courageous attorney - RNLA member Christian Adams.  We are grateful that the Sessions Justice Department respects the rule of law and has chosen to support Adams' litigation against this discriminatory law - at last.

AG Sessions Testifies Before House Judiciary; Highlights Promotion of Rule of Law at DOJ

Today, Attorney General Jeff Sessions testified before the House Judiciary Committee.  In his opening statement, he shared how the Department of Justice has advanced the rule of law since he took office:

After careful review, we have established a reinvigorated Project Safe Neighborhood program, as the foundational policy for public safety. . . . We have seen a 23 percent increase in gun prosecutions in the second quarter of this fiscal year. . . . We are making it clear that we stand with our law enforcement partners 100 percent. . . . We have also protected the rule of law in our own Department. We have prohibited so-called third party settlements that were being used to bankroll outside interest groups.

We have settled civil cases regarding the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate and settled the cases of many groups whose tax-exempt status was significantly and wrongly delayed by the Internal Revenue Service. We have also provided legal counsel to this administration in favor of ending several other unlawful policies. . . . We have filed briefs defending properly enacted state voter identification laws, lawful redistricting plans, religious liberty, and free speech on college campuses. In short, it is our mission to restore the American people’s confidence in the Department of Justice by defending the rule of law and enforcing the laws as you have passed them. And it is a mission we are honored to undertake. 

Attorney General Sessions was testifying in part on his previous testimony concerning contacts of the Trump campaign with agents of the Russian government.  He noted that, while it would be difficult for anyone to recall a conversation had in passing with someone a year ago, he has always answered questions truthfully to the best of his recollection:

In all of my testimony, I can only do my best to answer all of your questions as I understand them and to the best of my memory. But I will not accept and reject accusations that I have ever lied under oath. That is a lie.

Let me be clear: I have at all times conducted myself honorably and in a manner consistent with the high standards and responsibilities of the Office of Attorney General. As I said before, my story has never changed. I have always told the truth, and I have answered every question to the best of my recollection as I will continue to do today.

Attorney General Sessions has been a lightning rod for controversy and accusations particularly because he has conducted himself so ethically and led the Department of Justice so effectively.  His leadership in turning the DOJ back to the rule of law is especially remarkable considering the number of Obama-appointee holdovers and acting department heads that remain at the DOJ due to Senate Democrats' delays and the liberal leanings of most of the career staff.  We thank Attorney General Sessions for his service and his willingness to go before Congress yet again to testify and help Congress fulfill its role of oversight of DOJ.

AG Sessions Upholds Rule of Law by Enforcing Religious Liberty Laws

Pursuant to President Trump's religious liberties Executive Order in May, Attorney General Jeff Sessions today issued interpretive guidance on federal religious liberty laws to federal agencies.  Not only does this protect Americans' important First Amendment rights but it also promotes the rule of law by creating standards for consistent application of existing law across the Executive Branch.  

Attorney General Sessions described twenty religious liberty principles that would be used in Executive Branch actions and summarized in detail the legal basis for these principles (citations omitted):

The people, acting through their Constitution, have singled out religious liberty as deserving of unique protection.  In the original version of the Constitution, the people agreed that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." . . .  

The Free Exercise Clause recognizes and guarantees Americans the "right to believe and profess whatever religious doctrine [they] desire[ ]."  Government may not attempt to regulate religious beliefs, compel religious beliefs, or punish religious beliefs. . . . The Establishment Clause, too, protects religious liberty.  It prohibits government from establishing a religion and coercing Americans to follow it. . . . 

Finally, the Religious Test Clause, though rarely invoked, provides a critical guarantee to religious adherents that they may serve in American public life.  The Clause reflects the judgment of the Framers that a diversity of religious viewpoints in government would enhance the liberty of all Americans.

In addition to the constitutional protections for religious liberty, Sessions summarized federal statutory protections, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act.  Taken together with the cases, regulations, and Executive orders interpreting them, these form the basis for protection of religious liberty and the federal government has now been given clear guidance for applying these constitutional and statutory provisions.  Sessions specifically directed the Department of Justice to take actions to implement the guidance, including review by the Office of Legal Policy of any rulemaking or agency action for conformity with the guidance and principles.

President Trump, through the expert assistance of Attorney General Sessions, is fulfilling his promise to "lead by example on religious liberty."  Clarifying and enforcing existing laws is vital to preserving the rule of law, and the Trump-Sessions Department of Justice should be applauded for advancing the rule of law.

Why Did Former AG Lynch Use an Email Alias at the DOJ?

RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen wrote today in the Daily Caller about the recent revelations about former Attorney General Loretta Lynch's use of an email alias account at the Department of Justice:

Compare this with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and her tumultuous tenure. Lynch did not recuse herself from the investigation into Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s illegal use of a private email server that handled classified information.  Like her predecessor, Eric Holder, Lynch set up an alias DOJ email account under the name Elizabeth Carlisle to handle official business. 

She secretly met with Bill Clinton at a crucial moment in the investigation.  When a reporter discovered the clandestine meeting, the Lynch DOJ went into crisis mode — strategizing, preparing talking points, and working with the mainstream media to bury the story.  Lynch was involved in the response effort, but under her “Elizabeth Carlisle” alias. 

Why set up an alias email account?  The official version is the alias account avoided people guessing the Attorney General’s email address and flooding her inbox.  It is common practice for CEOs and other high profile leaders to have an email address that does not fit the organization’s customary formula. . . . What is not common practice is to use an entirely different name altogether.  Why would Lynch, and Holder before her, adopt such a strange practice?  One reason might be to avoid Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.  A person would request the Attorney General’s correspondence on a certain topic, but because the Attorney General had used her alias account, none of her emails would show up on a search for emails sent to or from Loretta Lynch.  As the email alias was unknown until last week, the Attorney General’s emails on sensitive subjects were largely kept from public release under FOIA.

This would be entirely in conformity with the Obama Administration’s practice of avoiding transparency whenever possible, despite claiming to be the “most transparent administration in history.”  Last July, the American Center for Law and Justice filed a FOIA request for documents relating to the Lynch-Clinton airplane meeting and the Obama FBI responded that no responsive documents existed.  After a lawsuit, over 400 pages of responsive documents were produced last week.  This is just one example of the Obama DOJ’s lack of transparency.

Mr. Thielen compared Lynch's actions with Attorney General Jeff Sessions' ethical behavior in recusing himself from the investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 election to avoid even an appearance of impropriety.  The Trump Department of Justice has important work to do to restore a culture of ethics, responsibility, and respect for the rule of law in the law firm for the American people.

Senator Cotton Points Out Democrats' Absurdity and a Big Lie

If you only have time (or the desire) to watch one Senator “question” Attorney General Sessions in today’s hearing before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, may I suggest watching Senator Cotton. 

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) comically mocked the allegations that Attorney General Jeff Sessions colluded with the Russians during a campaign event at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington during a campaign event last April. . . . “Do you like spy fiction? Do you like Jason Bourne or James Bond movies?” Cotton continued before slamming the probe.

“Have you ever, ever in any of these fantastical situations heard of a plot line so ridiculous that a sitting United States senator and an ambassador of a foreign government colluded at an open setting with hundreds of other people to pull off the greatest caper in the history of espionage?” he asked, prompting Sessions to laugh for the first time during the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing.

More seriously, Senator Cotton pointed out one of the many lies of the Democrats in this matter that may be overlooked:

"For the record, as stated earlier, the Republican platform was weakened on the point of arms for Ukraine. That’s incorrect,” the Arkansas senator said. “It was actually strengthened. I would add it was the Democratic president who refused requests to supply arms to Ukraine.” 

As Byron York detailed:

The wildest expression of the theory came, as it often does, from MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, who told viewers on March 8 that "something weird" happened to the GOP platform on "that Ukraine and Russia thing" when the Trump team "jumped right up on that and they insisted that that plank only, that one, had to be taken out, that language could not stand." . . .

As it turns out, a look at the original draft of the platform — which has never been released publicly — shows that it always had tough language on Russian aggression in Ukraine. And not only did that language stay in the final platform — nothing was taken out — it was actually strengthened, not weakened, as a result of events at the convention.

As the Daily Caller adds on the Obama Administration:

Cotton’s claim that former President Barack Obama prevented lethal arms aid to Ukraine is also accurate. The Obama administration avoided sending offensive weapons to Ukraine out of fear that they would escalate the conflict, despite bipartisan support for such a measure.

Senator Cotton, through pointing out both absurdity and facts, proved once again Democrats are not interested in the truth but in playing the worst form of politics.

More Fake News: Preet Bharara and US Attorneys

Once again the Democrats and their allies are screaming scandal where there is none.  Claiming that the 46 US Attorneys asked to resign last week is somehow wrong or unusual.  As Hans Von Spakovsky states:

In 2009, President Barack Obama asked for the resignation of George W. Bush-appointed U.S. Attorneys. When he replaced virtually all of them, it was treated as nothing out of the ordinary. That’s because it wasn’t. In March 1993 President Bill Clinton had Attorney General Janet Reno fire 93 of the 94 U.S. Attorneys appointed by the prior administration. (Only Michael Chertoff was retained, apparently at the request of Sen. Bill Bradley, D-N.J.) Again, there was no outrage over these firings.

Speaking of the 1993 resignation request letter, here is a copy of the March 23, 1993 letter sent to then US Attorney Jeff Sessions.  Now Attorney General Sessions did not refuse to resign and forced himself to be fired.  General Sessions was not grandstanding for the conservative base.  And to be clear the request was immediate.  As the letter states: “The President has asked me to request that United States Attorneys immediately submit letters of resignation, as has been asked of all Presidential appointees.” 

Yet, Preet Bharara acted like he was wronged and refused.  Why?  As Von Spakovsky explains:

Like all of the other remaining Obama political appointees, he was asked to resign. Unlike all the others, he refused to do so.

The administration then did the most natural thing in the world: it dismissed him.  Bharara broke the news himself, tweeting out that he had been fired almost as soon as he got off the telephone call with Main Justice. This little bit of political theatre is apparently calculated to raise his profile, his “cred” and perhaps his market value among the “Resist” wing of the Left.  

I am told by a knowledgeable media source that Bharara is extremely ambitious. New York papers have speculated that he may be ramping up for a run for governor or mayor.  Another former Justice Department source confirmed that Bharara “has grand political aspirations,” adding that he is also “extremely partisan.”

The most unfortunate part of this story is that the media is giving Preet any positive attention.  Preet is not a martyr, but a political opportunist using the left’s fake news machine.  

New York Times Shows Its Political Bias in Ignoring Actual Voter Intimidation

Over the weekend, the New York Times editorialized the following:

Jeff Sessions, the new attorney general, is hardly likely to be as proactive as the Obama administration was in investigating complaints of voter suppression by the states. 

This claim is laughable if it were not a serious matter.  President Obama’s Department of Justice did little or nothing on actual voter intimidation while acting as partisans.  We will limit ourselves to two examples at the beginning and end of President Obama’s term.  

In 2009, the new Obama Department of Justice was handed a “slam dunk” case of violations of Voting Rights Act as the result of the intimidation in the infamous “New Black Panther Party” video outside a polling place.  Yet, Obama political appointees at the Department of Justice overruled career staff in a partisan decision and the case was largely dismissed.  (Jerry Jackson, one of the two in the video, was later rewarded with election to a seat on the Philadelphia Democratic City Committee.)

Late in 2016, Presidential Electors in the state of Michigan received death threats before they cast their ballots for President Thump in the Electoral College.  These crystal clear efforts at intimidation or worse did not merit a peep out of the Obama Justice Department. 

There are other examples.  However, the Obama Administration Department of Justice seemly ignored voter intimidation and many other voting matters and did their job on a partisan basis.  The New York Times' proclamations that the Trump Department of Justice will behave worse when Attorney General Sessions has been on the job only a few days, shows the Times’ political basis.  

Senator Nelson Shows His True Feelings after Bowing to Extremist Pressure

The Democrats have become totally beholden to extremist elements in their own party.  Never has that been more clear than on their recent vote on the confirmation of their colleague Senator Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General.  All Democrats--except Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia--voted against him.  Yet, many Democrat Senators can be seen applauding Sessions' confirmation as Attorney General. 

Foremost of those applauding is Senator Bill Nelson of Florida.  Nelson is seen with long, apparently heartfelt applause for Senator Sessions, the man he just voted against confirming as Attorney General.  Senator Nelson is a case study of who is currently running the Democrat Party.

When the idea of Sessions as Attorney General was first floated, Senator Nelson stated, as quoted in an article entitled “Bill Nelson speaks highly of Attorney General prospect Jeff Sessions”:

“I can tell you I’ve worked with Jeff Sessions on a number of pieces of legislation … and we always got along. And we worked out, in a bipartisan way, whatever the issues were at the time.

“I think he’s a reasonable person,” Nelson added.

Then came the protests by extremists:

Wednesday morning (1/4) in Tampa, a group of activists spoke with officials in Sen. Bill Nelson‘s district office, calling on him at the very least to call for a delay a vote on Sessions’ confirmation, scheduled for January 10. Outside, a couple of dozen more concerned citizens held signs and spoke to reporters about their opposition to the Alabama Republican.

“We think that over the course of his career, Sen. Sessions used the power of the courts to discriminate against civil rights leaders, allegedly using racially charged language to disparage minorities, expressed support for the KKK and then tried to dismiss it as a joke,” said Toni Van Pelt, the president of the Pinellas County-based Institute for Science and Human Values.  . . .

“We can’t start normalizing this sexist bigotry, this racism, and this is the place where you draw the line, and you fight back and you hope the senator will hear that message and understand that there’s an awful lot of us who have his back if he’s willing to fight as hard he’s needed to,” [Nadine] Smith [head of Equality Florida] said.

As Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley’s office said at the time explained in response:

“The notion that Sen. Sessions — somebody who committee members have known and served beside for 20 years — hasn’t made a good-faith effort to supply the committee with responsive material is preposterous,” said a spokeswoman for Grassley. “It’s been clear from the day Senator Sessions’ nomination was announced that the left-wing advocacy groups aren’t interested in a fair process and just want a fight. We trust the minority committee members will have the courage to give Senator Sessions the fair and respectful process he deserves.” (emphasis added.) 

So, it seems that Senator Nelson ignored his personal history and did not have the courage to stand up to the activists, seemingly agreeing with their argument that Sessions is a sexist bigot. 

Yet there was Senator Nelson cheerfully clapping for over 30 seconds (he is seen above the word "yea" clapping from the 18 second mark until 51 second mark) for Attorney General Sessions.  It looks like Senator Nelson knows that Jeff Sessions will make a fine Attorney General but surrendered his own judgment in response to the attacks from liberal extremists.  This is not worthy of a Senator.   

Senator Graham Exposes the Ridiculousness of the Partisan Motives of Senate Democrats

Right now, Senate Democrats are engaging in an overnight marathon Senate session to disparage Senator Jeff Sessions before his confirmation vote as Attorney General. Senator Lindsey Graham spoke on the Senate floor in support of Jeff Sessions for Attorney General earlier today. Senator Graham completely destroyed the "more substantive" arguments of the Democrats against Senator Sessions.

A few highlights: first, Senator Graham fought against the charge that Senator Sessions is biased because he is too close to President Trump, whom Senator Sessions endorsed:   

I would expect that the attorney general nominee know the president well before they're chosen.  This idea that Senator Sessions was close to President Trump during the campaign is somehow a disqualifier makes absolutely zero sense to me.  The bottom line is that's exactly the kind of people you would expect the president to pick, someone who has been on their team, someone they know, someone they believe in to carry out the duties of the offices that they're nominated for.  

And he delivered a stinging rebuke: 

So I don't have the time to go through history, but i would assume that in past nominations, particularly for attorney general, there's been some kind of relationship between the president who nominated and the person who's seeking the job. So if that's going to be the new standard: I would suggest that nobody in this body ever endorse anybody for president because apparently you can't serve in the cabinet.  That would be kind of silly.  

By this standard, President Obama would never have had a Secretary of State, as both Hillary Clinton and John Kerry would have been disqualified. 

Next, he addresses the charge of racism against Senator Sessions.  He exposes the charge for what it truly is: partisan politics. 

I think it would be unfair to say that Senator Jeff Sessions is not qualified for the job at hand.  Most of the attacks against Senator Sessions could be levied against almost everybody on this side of the aisle.  Here's what I want the body to know: that in the report card of the 113th Congress, the first half, here are the [NAACP] ratings [that were used to help label Sessions racist]: Senator Grassley -- all Republicans here -- 11%, Hatch, 25%, Graham 25%, Cornyn 11%, Lee 11, Cruz 11%, Sasse -- he wasn't in the Congress; Flake 29%, Crapo 14%, Tillis and Kennedy were not rated yet. On the Democratic side of the Judiciary Committee: Feinstein 100%, Leahy is 100%, Whitehouse 100%, Klobuchar 100%, Franken 100%, Coons 96%, Blumenthal 100%, and Hirono 100%.  Not only did Jeff Sessions have a poor rating, all of us did. So to my friends on the other side, you're making arguments that I don't think are good for the future of this body and the country as a whole. Because almost everything said about Jeff could be said about me and most of my colleagues over here. 

Should the American Conservative Union’s (ACU) ratings have been used for Democratic Presidential nominees just as Democrats are using the NAACP for Republicans for cabinet positions?  Then-Senator Clinton received an 8% rating and then-Senator Kerry received a 4% rating from ACU in the years before they were confirmed for cabinet positions. 

Yet Republicans regularly voted for such low-rated nominees.  However, it goes beyond ratings and charges; it goes to philosophies of the winning candidate.  As Senator Graham pointed out: 

It goes on.  Why did I vote for [former Obama Attorney General Eric] Holder? Why did I vote for [former Obama Attorney General Loretta] Lynch? Why did I vote for [Supreme Court Justices] Sotomayor and Kagan and the list goes on and on and on? I expect that when a liberal president wins, that they will pick people who are qualified, who share their view to represent their administration. When it comes to the attorney general, you can be liberal and you can be conservative, but you still also can be fair to the public as a whole. I don't believe for one second that Jeff Sessions as Attorney General of the United States will take any of his political positions and jam them down your throat if the law says no.  I have never seen that about the man. And the minority leader of the Alabama Senate, Senator Ross, African-American Democratic Minority Leader said, “I have worked with Jeff Sessions, I know him personally, and all of my encounters with him have been for the greater good of Alabama. We've spoken about everything, from civil rights to race relations. We agree that as Christian men our hearts and minds are focused on doing right by all people.” 

That is the Jeff Sessions that I know.   That is why I lend my support to his nomination.

Thank you, Senator Graham.