Bipartisan bill would raise SEC's limits on securities fines, tie penalties to scope of harm, and crackdown on repeat offenders

WASHINGTON, DC - In an effort to prevent financial fraud and strengthen oversight and accountability of Wall Street, U.S. Senators Jack Reed (D-RI) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) are introducing bipartisan legislation to strengthen the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) ability to crack down on securities laws violations.

The Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act (SEC Penalties Act) of 2012 will increase the statutory limits on civil monetary penalties, directly link the size of these penalties to the scope of harm and associated investor losses, and substantially raise the financial stakes for repeat offenders of our nation's securities laws.

Under existing law, the SEC can only penalize individual violators a maximum of $150,000 per offense and institutions $725,000.  In some cases, the SEC may calculate penalties to equal the gross amount of ill-gotten gain, but only if the matter goes to federal court, not when the SEC handles a case administratively.  The SEC Penalties Act increases the per violation cap applicable to the most serious securities laws violations to $1 million per violation for individuals, and $10 million per violation for entities.  In cases where the penalty is tied to the amount of money gained by the bad action, the SEC would be able to triple the penalty.  It would also triple the penalty cap for recidivists who have been convicted of securities fraud or subject to SEC administrative relief within the past five years.  The agency would be able to assess these types of penalties in-house, and not just in federal court.

"In order to protect taxpayers and investors, we need tougher anti-fraud laws and forceful oversight of Wall Street.  Some of these institutions that are 'too big to fail' have also become 'too big to care.'  If they look at the bottom line and see they can break the law, get caught, pay a nominal fine, and still profit, the cycle of misconduct will continue.  The law needs to change to ensure the punishment fits the crime.  This bill gives the SEC more tools to demand meaningful accountability from Wall Street," said Reed, the Chairman of the Banking Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment.  "I am pleased to be joined by Senator Grassley in this bipartisan effort to enhance the SEC's ability to protect investors and crack down on fraud."

"If a fine is just decimal dust for a Wall Street firm, that's not a deterrent," Grassley said.  "It's just the cost of doing business.  A penalty should mean something, and it should get the recidivists' attention.  I especially like the increased penalties for repeat offenders in this bill.   That should help change the dynamic of business as usual.  If this legislation is enacted, as I hope it will be, I expect the SEC to use these new penalties.  The SEC doesn't always use all of the penalties at its disposal, and it should."

The SEC is responsible for overseeing approximately 35,000 entities, as well as the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), which itself oversees 4,500 brokers; the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), which oversees auditors of public companies; and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB), which regulates municipal securities firms and municipal advisors.

Last year, the SEC successfully brought 735 enforcement actions which resulted in the transfer of $2.8 billion in penalties and returned funds to harmed investors.

However, in a recent case between the SEC and two former Bear Stearns hedge fund managers who were indicted on charges of wire and securities fraud for misrepresenting the health of their funds that cost investors $1.6 billion, the SEC was forced to settle for civil penalties of $800,000 and $250,000, respectively.  Neither of the former executives admitted nor denied the allegations and were banned from the securities industry for three years and two years, respectively.

A summary of the SEC Penalties Act of 2012 follows:

Update Civil Money Penalties for Securities Law Violations. The bill modernizes and updates the maximum money penalties that may be obtained from individuals and entities charged with securities law violations in administrative and civil actions.

Most Serious Violations. The maximum penalty for an individual charged with the most serious violations (i.e., third tier violations involving fraud, deceit, manipulation, or deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement that resulted in substantial losses to victims or substantial pecuniary gain to the violator) could not exceed, for each violation, the greater of (i) $1 million, (ii) three times the gross pecuniary gain, or (iii) the losses incurred by victims as a result of the violation.  The maximum amount that could be obtained from entities charged with the most serious violations could not exceed, for each violation, the greater of (i) $10 million, (ii) three times the gross pecuniary gain, or (iii) the losses incurred by victims as a result of the violation.

Other Violations. The maximum penalties for individuals and entities charged with other violations would be revised as follows:

1.         The maximum penalty for an individual charged with less serious violations involving fraud, deceit, manipulation, or deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement (i.e., second tier violations) could not exceed, for each violation, $100,000 or the gross pecuniary gain as a result of the violation.  The maximum penalty that could be obtained from entities charged with these violations could not exceed, for each violation, $500,000 or the gross pecuniary gain as a result of the violation.

2.         The maximum penalty for an individual charged with violations not involving fraud, deceit, manipulation, or deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement (i.e., first tier violations) could not exceed, for each violation, $10,000 or the gross pecuniary gain as a result of the violation.  The maximum penalty that could be obtained from entities charged with these violations could not exceed, for each violation, $100,000 or the gross pecuniary gain as a result of the violation.

Penalties for Recidivists. The maximum amount of the penalty for repeated misconduct shall be three times the applicable cap when the person or entity within the five years preceding the act or omission is (a) criminally convicted of securities fraud or (b) is subject to a judgment or order concerning securities fraud.

Violations of Injunctions or Bars. The bill provides authority to seek civil penalties for violations of previously imposed injunctions or bars obtained or entered under the securities laws.  It also provides that each violation of an injunction or order shall be considered a separate offense.  However, in the event of an ongoing failure to comply with an injunction or order, each day of the continued failure to comply with the injunction or order shall be considered a separate offense.

-end-

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley will meet with Iowans in Columbus Junction, Donnellson, Burlington, Agency, Bloomfield, Keosauqua, Mount Pleasant, Lockridge, and Cedar Rapids during the first week of the Senate's August recess.

 

"I look forward to these events and meetings to listen to comments and respond to questions.  My town meetings are open to the public, and everyone is welcome.  I also appreciate the opportunity to go to service clubs for Q and A," Grassley said.  "Representative government is a two-way street and strengthened by dialogue between elected officials and the people we represent."

 

Grassley has held at least one meeting with Iowans in every one of the state's 99 counties since 1980, when he was first elected to serve in the U.S. Senate.

 

Below is more information about the August 7, 8 and 9 schedule.  Grassley will be available to answer questions from reporters following each event.

 

Grassley is planning additional meetings with Iowans for the week of August 20.

 

Tuesday, August 7

9:15-10:15 a.m.

Louisa County Town Meeting

Columbus Junction City Hall, ICN Room

232 2nd Street in Columbus Junction

 

12 noon-1 p.m.

Lee County Town Meeting

Pilot Grove Savings Bank, Community Center

506 North Main Street in Donnellson

 

2-3 p.m.

Speak at the Burlington Chamber of Commerce Meeting

Connect with Leadership Series

River Park Place

610 North 4th Street, Suite 200 in Burlington

 

4:30-5:30 p.m.

Wapello County Town Meeting

Agency Area Community Center

100 West Main Street in Agency

 

Wednesday, August 8

6:45-7:45 a.m.

Speak to the Bloomfield Rotary Club

Davis County Hospital, Conference Room D

509 North Madison Street in Bloomfield

 

8:45-9:45 a.m.

Van Buren County Town Meeting

Village Cup and Cakes

202 Main Street in Keosauqua

 

12 noon-1 p.m.

Speak to the Mount Pleasant Noon Rotary Club

Iowa Wesleyan College Student Center

Second Floor, Food Services Area

Mount Pleasant

 

1:30-2:30 p.m.

Jefferson County Town Meeting

Lockridge Senior Center

104 West Main Street in Lockridge

 

Thursday, August 9

5:30 p.m.

Speak at the Central States Shrine Association Legions of Honor Banquet

Cedar Rapids Marriott

1200 Collins Road Northeast in Cedar Rapids

 

-30-

Protecting Whistleblowers

Friday, July 20, 2012

The value of whistleblowers to the public good, and the need to protect whistleblowers, is clear as ever.  Whistleblowers within federal government agencies have courageously and patriotically stepped forward to point out waste, fraud and abuse of tax dollars.  A famous whistleblower decades ago said whistleblowers are guilty of "committing truth."  We're all better off for the truth whistleblowers commit, and they deserve our respect and support.

Click here for audio.

Here is the text of the address:

The value of whistleblowers to the public good, and the need to protect whistleblowers, is clear as ever.

Without whistleblowers, the public probably never would have known about the operational tactics in the federal government's Fast and Furious program that might have led to the murder of United States Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.  That's why Congressman Darrell Issa and I have asked the head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to clarify his remarks to employees about reporting concerns within the agency.  His ominous comments are likely to chill whistleblowers from reporting legitimate problems and undermine very necessary efforts to make improvements in the agency.    The message sent by the acting director of the ATF is unacceptable.

Another federal agency - the Food and Drug Administration - is also demonstrating the kind of intense retaliation whistleblowers can face.  The FDA started an aggressive campaign more than two years ago to spy on protected, personal email messages of certain agency employees.  Then the FDA retaliated against these agency whistleblowers after they raised concerns to Congress about the safety of drugs and devices approved by the FDA.

What the FDA has done has serious implications for the right of federal employees to make valuable protected disclosures about waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement, or public safety to Congress or anyone else.  This kind of communication is protected for good reason.  The scope and tone of the surveillance effort reveals an agency more concerned about protecting itself than protecting the public, which ironically is the agency's mission.  I will continue to dig in and pursue information and accountability from the FDA.

Finally, this week the Judiciary Committee, where I serve as Ranking Member, held a hearing on improving forensic science in the criminal justice system.  I renewed my request for information from the FBI about the scientific integrity of its crime lab, and from the Department of Justice about its review of past prosecutions.

The Department of Justice is conducting an expansive review of criminal cases where defendants may have been wrongly convicted because of flawed forensic work in the FBI crime lab following investigative reporting by The Washington Post that indicated that "sloppy" and "unreliable" work may have led to the incarceration of hundreds of innocent people.  This review needs to avoid mistakes made by a previous task force, so that the forensic science system in this country is as good as it can be.

Today's problems in the FBI crime lab follow improvements made 15 years ago, after a crime lab scientist named Dr. Frederic Whitehurst risked his career to come forward with allegations about wrongdoing in the FBI crime lab.  At that time, the scientific integrity of the lab and thousands of prosecutions that relied on evidence it processed were in question.  Dr. Whitehurst was retaliated against by the FBI, as well.  Ultimately, after a lengthy fight, Dr. Whitehurst's disclosures resulted in an independent investigation that recommended lab changes, including accreditation by an outside body.  Today, again, work needs to be done to safeguard the integrity of the FBI lab.

I stand up for whistleblowers through legislation to empower and protect them, and through congressional oversight of the federal agencies they legitimately, and importantly challenge.  A famous whistleblower decades ago said whistleblowers are guilty of committing "truth."  We're all better off for the truth they commit, and they deserve our respect and support.

-30-

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley said that transparency about water contamination at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune is long overdue, as Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy today released more than 8,500 documents from the Department of Defense.  The documents were produced in response to a request made last month by Leahy and Grassley.

 

The Department of Defense had refused to produce documents in response to a similar request made in March.  That request stemmed from complaints to members of Congress about the Navy's refusal to disclose documents needed for scientific studies of the contamination at the base.

 

"Congressional offices had received complaints that the Navy was improperly citing exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act to withhold documents related to the contamination," Grassley said, expressing frustration that the Obama administration has not been more forthcoming despite memos issued by the President and pledges to be the "most transparent administration ever."

 

The drinking water contamination that took place over several decades at the base was one of the worst environmental disasters in American history.  A registry exists for individuals who lived or worked at the base before 1987 to receive notifications about the contamination.  It includes the names of 1,121 Iowans.  It is estimated that more than 750,000 people may have been exposed to hazardous chemicals at the base.

 

Grassley cosponsored the Caring for Camp Lejeune Veterans Act, which was introduced by Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina in 2011.  A version of the bill passed the Senate yesterday with unanimous approval.  The legislation would help to provide medical treatment and care for service members and their families who lived at the camp and were injured by this chemical contamination.

 

Floor Statement of U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Water Contamination at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune

Thursday, July 19, 2012

 

Mr. President,

 

I'm pleased that Chairman Leahy and I were able to help with the effort to look at the issue of water contamination at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in North Carolina.  In particular, in June, we sent a letter to the Department of Defense, which has resulted in it producing more than 8,500 documents to the Judiciary Committee.

 

I know that Senator Burr and others have been leaders with the effort to look into the situation at Camp Lejeune.

 

Every member of the Senate should be aware of the situation at Camp Lejeune.

 

The drinking water contamination that took place over several decades at the base was one of the worst environmental disasters in American history.

 

Camp Lejeune was designated a Superfund site by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1988 after inspections confirmed contamination of the ground water due to the migration of hazardous chemicals from outside the base and inadequate procedures to contain and dispose of hazardous chemicals on the base.

 

Residents of every State, who previously lived or worked at the base, have been impacted by the contamination.

 

Indeed, more than 180,000 current and former members of the armed services and employees at the base have signed up for the Camp Lejeune Historic Drinking Water Registry.  By registering, individuals who lived or worked at the base before 1987 receive notifications about the contamination.

 

The Camp Lejeune registry includes residents from all 50 States.  1,121 Iowans are among them.  It's estimated that more than 750,000 people may have been exposed to hazardous chemicals at the base.

 

The numbers don't fully reflect the impact of the disaster at the base.  There are real people behind those numbers.

 

In March, as part of the Judiciary Committee's annual oversight hearing on the Freedom of Information Act, we heard the testimony of retired Marine Master Sergeant Jerry Ensminger.  He was stationed at Camp Lejeune with his family and told us of the battle his daughter, Janey, fought with leukemia for two-and-a-half years, before she died at the age of nine.  He also told us of the difficulties that he and others were having getting information from the Department of Defense.

 

The men and women of the armed services protect us every day.  We should never take them or the sacrifices that they and their families make for granted.

 

We in Congress have an obligation to do everything that we can to support them in their mission.

 

That's why I'm a cosponsor of the Caring for Camp Lejeune Veterans Act, which was introduced by Senator Burr in 2011.  That bill, a version of which passed by unanimous consent in the Senate yesterday, will help to provide medical treatment and care for service members and their families, who lived at the camp and were injured by the chemical contamination.

 

Unfortunately, the Department of Defense has not been forthcoming with information about the contamination at Camp Lejeune.

 

That's troubling, especially coming from the administration that proclaims itself to be the "most transparent administration ever."

 

As we all recall, on his first full day in office, President Obama declared openness and transparency to be touchstones of his administration, and ordered agencies to make it easier for the public to get information about the government.

 

Specifically, he issued two memoranda written in grand language and purportedly designed to usher in a "new era of open government."

 

Based on my experience in trying to pry information out of the Executive Branch and based on investigations I've conducted, and inquiries by the media, I'm disappointed to report that President Obama's statements in memos about transparency are not being put into practice.

 

There's a complete disconnect between the President's grand pronouncements about transparency and the actions of his political appointees.

 

The situation with the Camp Lejeune documents is just another example of that disconnect.  The documents should have been produced long ago.

 

The recent letter that Chairman Leahy and I sent from the Judiciary Committee had to be sent because the Defense Department refused to produce documents in response to a March letter signed by six senators and three members of the House of Representatives.  Chairman Leahy and I had also signed that March letter.

 

The March letter had to be sent because of complaints that Congressional offices had received about the Navy's refusal to disclose documents needed for scientific studies of the contamination at Camp Lejeune.  It was also needed because of claims that the Navy is improperly citing exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act to withhold documents related to the contamination.

 

So, while I'm pleased that there was a bipartisan effort to obtain these documents, I'm disappointed by the stonewalling and by the hurdles that were put up by the administration.

Transparency and open government must be more than just pleasant sounding words found in memos.  They are essential to the functioning of a democratic government.

 

Transparency is about basic good government and accountability–not party politics or ideology.

 

Throughout my career I have actively conducted oversight of the Executive Branch regardless of who controls the Congress or the White House.

 

I'll continue doing what I can to hold this administration's feet to the fire with Camp Lejeune and where ever else I find stonewalling and secrecy.

 

Thank you.  I yield the floor.

Thursday, July 19, 2012

 

Before we turn to the agenda, I want to say a few words about yesterday's hearing on forensics and a letter I sent to the Attorney General on Tuesday.  We heard from experts yesterday about the current state of forensic science in the courts.  One of the topics of discussion was the recent reports by The Washington Post regarding "sloppy" and "unreliable" work at the FBI crime lab that may have led to innocent people being convicted.

The Post also detailed a 2004 review conducted by the Justice Department to identify cases where flawed work by the FBI crime lab may have been involved.  By all accounts, that review was poorly done and it appears that defense attorneys may not have been notified about cases where problems existed.

These are stunning developments given my work with Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, a former FBI Agent who blew the whistle on problems with the FBI Crime lab in the 1990s.  Dr. Whitehurst's disclosures came at a great cost to him personally as he faced retaliation from the FBI.  However, his disclosures led to an Inspector General report that led to many reforms that have strengthened the FBI crime lab.

Given the recent reports by The Washington Post, Chairman Leahy and I sent a letter on May 21 seeking information from the FBI Director.  Unfortunately, that letter has gone unanswered for over 60 days.

So, on Tuesday, prior to the hearing, I sent a new letter to the Attorney General seeking information about the 2004 review and problems with notifying defendants.  Hopefully, the Attorney General will respond to this letter faster than the FBI has to the letter the Chairman and I sent back in May.

Given this committee's past work with whistleblowers like Dr. Whitehurst and the discussion on improving forensic science, the Justice Department and FBI should provide us answers immediately.

Turning to the Committee's agenda, on S.285, the private relief bill sponsored by Senator Levin, I will offer an amendment.  If that amendment is adopted, our side would be willing to voice vote the bill and report it out.

With regard to S.3276, the FAA Sunsets Extension Act, we're prepared to vote on a straight extension of the law today.  This is an important bill that reauthorizes the FISA Amendments Act, a program vital to our national security.

This bill was reported out of the Intelligence Committee without amendment extending the program through 2017.  The House Judiciary Committee and House Intelligence Committee have both reported a similar bill without amendment.

The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence have written to us stating that this reauthorization is "the highest legislative priority for the Intelligence Community" this congress.  Further, they added, "Our first priority, however, is reauthorization of these authorities in their current form.  We look forward to working with you to ensure the speedy enactment of legislation reauthorizing Title VII, without amendment, to avoid any interruption in our use of these authorities to protect the American people."

I agree with the Administration, the House Judiciary Committee, and the House and Senate Intelligence Committees that we should reauthorize this program as soon as possible without amendment.

However, the Chairman has a substitute amendment opening the bill to amendment, so our side will have some amendments to offer as well.

This debate is similar to last year's reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act.  There the Administration sought a clean extension given the urgent need for the tools.  However, this committee made unnecessary changes to the law that held up passage of it on the floor.

Here, we have a bill proposed by the Administration simply reauthorizing the tools without amendment that passed by the Intelligence Committee without amendment, and now some are seeking to make changes.

I understand that the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee is prepared to support the changes the Chairman is proposing.  I'm not sure what's changed in the eyes of the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee since she wrote to members on June 19, 2012, supporting her bill without amendment.

In that letter, she stated, "The Select Committee on Intelligence has conducted careful oversight of Title VII."  She then informed us that the Intelligence Committee proposed extending the sunset to June 2017, in accordance with the Administration proposal.  Now, I'm told she supports a 2015 sunset.  This is problematic as the timing will line up the foreign surveillance provisions of the FAA Amendments Act with the domestic provisions of the PATRIOT Act.

Undoubtedly, this will cause confusion and potentially jeopardize reauthorization of two critical national security programs.

So, we're prepared to address this bill today, along with some other important national security matters that should be voted on in Committee.

On the nominations, we are prepared to move forward with all the nominations on the agenda.  Unless someone requests otherwise, we should be able to move these nominations by voice vote.  Thank you.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012

The Office of Senator Chuck Grassley issued the following information today in response to comments made by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney about waivers to the federal welfare program's work requirements being supported in 2003 by Senator Grassley.

Senator Grassley's demonstrated goal for the TANF program has been to make work requirements stronger.

As Chairman of the Finance Committee in 2003, Senator Grassley authored and won passage of a reauthorization bill reflecting that goal.  The legislation didn't push for work waivers, as suggested by Jay Carney.  The only broad waiver authority in the Grassley bill was for a 10-state demonstration project to improve the coordination and delivery of services by TANF, the Social Services Block Grant, and child care services.  This project was specifically objected to by every Democratic senator serving on the Finance Committee in the Minority Views expressed in Finance Committee Report 108-162.  Ironically, in light of the current executive branch's interest in controlling waivers, the Minority Views call the super-waiver demonstration "an ill-considered attempt to cede Congressional authority to the Executive branch."  The Views are attached.  The Views include objections to the bill as a whole such as "not enough flexibility for states," "higher hour standards," and not enough flexibility for education and rehabilitation.  No Democratic senator voted for the legislation in committee.  On the Senate floor, the Democratic caucus launched a filibuster against the legislation.

As far as work requirements, then-Chairman Grassley's 2003 legislation increased required participation hours from 30 to 34 per week and set a hard cap on the state-determined participation rate, in contrast to the Obama administration's apparent current effort to reduce work requirements and to do so without any proper authority.

Carney remarks:

Carney-- weds: 13:14:56 to address hypocritical criticism I have been surprised by it as... By the hypocrisy of our critics since many of them have in the past supported and even proposed such waivers -- Governor Romney, Governor Barbour, Governor Huckabee, Secretary Tommy Thompson and Senator Grassley -- all supported these kinds of waivers for states in the past. In a 2005 letter to the Senate Republicans governors including then Governor Romney requested such waivers. Under President George W. Bush, HHS Secretary Thompson put forward a proposal that would allow quote "super waivers" in the program. The Senate under republican control at the time passed a bill authored by Senator Grassley with broad waiver authority. And just last year, states led by democrats and republicans including Nevada and Utah called for these waivers.. these very waivers so they could have more flexibility to get more people back to work faster. So given this long documented history of bipartisan support it is surprising to say the least to see this kind of flip flopping on the part of republicans. 13:16:08
WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley today won Finance Committee approval of his legislation to require the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to continue negotiating with Russian officials for a bilateral Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) equivalence agreement even though Russia already has gained accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Grassley said the Obama administration should have been pushing for greater reductions to non-tariff trade barriers on agricultural products, including reaching a separate, bilateral agreement on SPS standards, when negotiating the Russia Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) accession package.

"The administration missed an important opportunity during accession discussions to demand a separate SPS equivalence agreement," he said.  "I appreciate that Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Hatch supported my effort to include my sanitary and phytosanitary provisions in the bill that the committee approved today.  The lesson of the U.S. experience with China on these issues is that you cannot assume anything, and an aggressive approach is needed for science-based standards."

In a June letter to President Obama, Grassley and 33 other senators said, "If we are not able to adequately address the SPS issues, it will undermine the commitments obtained [from Russia] on tariffs and quotas."

Last year, U.S. beef, pork and poultry exports collectively ranked second only to aircraft engines in total U.S. export value to Russia.

In addition to requiring a continued effort by USTR to secure a bilateral agreement on SPS standards, the Finance Committee-approved PNTR bill also would require USTR to annually report to Congress on Russia's implementation of the SPS requirements that are set forth in the WTO accession agreement with regard to U.S. agricultural products.

During the Finance Committee meeting today, Grassley said, "American pork producers in particular have had to deal with a number of unjustifiable standards imposed by Russia in recent years."  The Iowa senator said he will be looking for a detailed report from negotiators from the U.S. Trade Representative about Russia's standards for trichinae, tetracycline and salmonella, among other issues, when Russia's implementation of the WTO SPS agreement is assessed.

-30-

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley has renewed his request for basic information from the FBI about the scientific integrity of its crime lab and from the Department of Justice about its review of past prosecutions, and he raised questions about how to improve forensic science in the criminal justice system during a hearing this morning of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

 

Grassley's most recent request for information from the Department of Justice was made Monday in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder.  The Department of Justice and FBI last week announced a broad review of criminal cases where defendants may have been wrongly convicted because of flawed forensic work in the FBI crime lab following investigative reporting by The Washington Post that indicated that "sloppy" and "unreliable" work may have led to the incarceration of hundreds of innocent people, and that a 2004 review by the Department of Justice didn't go far enough in identifying potential cases of wrongful convictions.

 

Grassley also had made a request for information from FBI Director Robert Mueller in May, with Senator Patrick Leahy, but the FBI has not responded.

 

"I'm glad the Department has decided to conduct a more expansive review, but I also want to make sure the wider review avoids mistakes made by a previous task force," Grassley said.  "We still don't have a full accounting of the findings of the previous task force, so my oversight remains focused on accountability and making sure the forensic science system in this country is as good as it can be."

 

In 1997, Grassley took on the cause of Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, an FBI crime lab scientist who risked his career to come forward with allegations about wrongdoing in the FBI crime lab, which called into question the scientific integrity of the lab and the thousands of prosecutions that relied on evidence it processed.  For his effort, Whitehurst was retaliated against by the FBI.  Ultimately, however, Whitehurst's disclosures resulted in an independent investigation that recommended lab changes, including accreditation by an outside body.

 

"Thanks to the actions of Dr. Whitehurst, cases where faulty procedures, flawed analysis, and improper testimony were given were reviewed," Grassley said.

 

Click here to see Grassley's July 16, 2012, request for information from the Attorney General.

 

Click here to see Grassley's May 21, 2012, request for information, with Leahy, from the FBI Director.

 

Grassley's statement from this morning's Judiciary Committee hearing is below.

 

Prepared Statement of U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Hearing on "Improving Forensic Science in the Criminal Justice System"

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.  I join you in wanting to make sure that the forensic science system in this country is as good as it can be.   This is an important subject for the Judiciary Committee to address, since forensic science is the application of science in the courtroom, designed to identify the guilty and exclude the innocent.  It's not about academic or pure scientific research.  And I'm pleased that we are able to have a consensus panel of witnesses today.

 

Years ago, I supported a whistleblower who exposed serious problems at the FBI Crime Lab, Dr. Frederic Whitehurst.  And he's here in the room with us today.

 

Dr. Whitehurst risked his career to come forward with allegations about wrongdoing in the FBI crime lab.  In the words of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, "Dr. Whitehurst has made a number of very serious allegations that call into question the scientific integrity of the FBI crime lab and the thousands of prosecutions that rely on evidence it has processed."    For his effort, he was retaliated against by the FBI and spent years litigating with the FBI via the Freedom of Information Act to obtain documents outlining the retaliation he faced by the FBI.

 

The disclosures Dr. Whitehurst made resulted in a DOJ Inspector-General investigation that recommended 40 changes to improve procedures at the Lab, including accreditation by an outside body.  Thanks to the actions of Dr. Whitehurst, cases where faulty procedures, flawed analysis, and improper testimony were given were reviewed.  Ultimately, Dr. Whitehurst's case resulted in the Justice Department creating a regulatory process for whistleblowers to adjudicate their claims.  That process is unfortunately broken and needs our legislative attention.

 

Additionally, more work needs to be done on the FBI crime lab and DoJ's review of past cases.  Recently, The Washington Post found that a 2004 DoJ review of flawed hair and fiber analysis at the FBI Lab didn't go far enough in identifying potential cases of wrongful convictions.  And even in cases that were identified, DoJ did not ensure that defense counsels were informed.  Mr. Chairman, you and I jointly wrote a letter to the FBI on this matter.  But almost 60 days later we have not received a response.

 

The FBI publicly announced last week that it was expanding its review, but our request for basic information still hasn't been answered.  On Monday, I sent another letter with further questions.  I expect answers to this serious matter to ensure that the problems Dr. Whitehurst uncovered are not continuing to this day.

 

So, I appreciate the importance of this hearing and the goal of improving the use of forensic science in the criminal justice system. Wrongful convictions are very rare, but they do happen.  And, flawed use of forensic science accounts for some of them.

 

I want to be clear that I don't think forensic science as a whole is the problem.  Forensic science has come a long way over the years.  Most important was the development of DNA testing technology.  Nowadays, we don't even need outdated forensic disciplines like hair comparison or blood matching, which account for most of the wrongful convictions due to flawed use of forensic science. Furthermore, those cases are usually the result of bad practice of forensic science, not bad science itself.

 

Unfortunately, there are those who claim that certain forensic sciences as a whole are invalid.  These critics usually point to one famous case or another to indict an entire discipline.  For example, after more than 100 years of critical contributions to public safety, fingerprints are now called into question because of the Brandon Mayfield incident.  The Washington Post yesterday said that there is some "uncertainty" with fingerprints as a whole.  This latest attack is similar to the attacks which questioned whether DNA analysis was valid when prosecutors first tried to introduce it in the early 1990s.

 

However, there is plenty of proof on the record that fingerprints are reliable.  One study completed after the Mayfield incident found a 99.9 percent reliability by FBI examiners.  And this study was published in the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences.  That's why, as the DoJ Inspector General has pointed out, every federal court of appeals that has addressed the issue has held that fingerprints are admissible as evidence.

 

The criminal justice system is adversarial for a reason ? to help uncover the truth through questioning of evidence.  It is a robust system with Constitutional and other legal protections for defendants.

 

Unlike the adversarial system, some have recommended that we turn over forensic study to unelected and, often, unaccountable bureaucrats.

 

From my work in the Senate with federal government whistleblowers, I can tell you that I would trust the adversarial court system before I trusted federal bureaucrats.  What happens in a courtroom is public and claims are subject to cross-examination.  Decisions about forensic science shouldn't be made behind closed doors by unelected bureaucrats.

 

We've all seen how a supposedly neutral scientific regulatory agency, the FDA, handles honest disagreements ? by spying on the dissenters.  I would hate for decisions on forensic science to fall prey to the bureaucracy as well.

 

There are three main issues, therefore, that I want to examine in this hearing.

 

First, how do we improve forensic science without throwing out the baby with the bathwater?  I don't want our efforts to improve the system to call into question the hard work that has already been done ? and is being done every day ? in labs across the country.

 

Second, what kind of improvement will be most efficient and effective?  Should the federal government ? which has some of its own problems ? be regulating the states?  Or should it get its own house in order first?

 

Third, how will any changes relate to existing policies and procedures?  There is already a lot work going on to improve forensics.  The DoJ-supported Scientific Working Groups for each discipline are crafting new standards for their members.  DoJ and other entities are funding more research.  Labs are being accredited to strict national and international standards.  And prosecutors, defense counsel, and judges are learning more about how to evaluate forensic evidence.  Congress should be careful not to pre-empt that work.

 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about these matters and I again thank Dr. Whitehurst for being here today.  Thank you.

Floor Speech of Sen. Chuck Grassley

FDA Whistleblower Spying

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

I rise today to speak about a federal agency that has forgotten that it works for the American public.

This is an agency that has gotten too big for its britches.

Some of its officials have forgotten who pays their salaries.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is supposed to work to protect the American people.

Except lately, the only thing the FDA bureaucrats seem to have any interest in protecting is themselves.

According to whistleblowers and published reports in the Washington Post and New York Times, the agency in charge of safeguarding American public safety has trampled on the privacy of its employees.

The FDA mounted an aggressive campaign against employees who dared to question its actions and created what the New York Times termed an "enemies list" of people it considered dangerous.

The FDA has been spying on this "enemies list."

The FDA has been spying on the personal emails of these employees and everyone they contacted.

That includes their protected communications with Congress.

We would not have known the extent of the spying if internal FDA documents about it had not been released on the Internet, apparently by accident.

We would not have known how the FDA intentionally targeted and capture confidential, personal emails between the whistleblowers, their lawyers, and Congress.

In these internal documents that FDA never wanted the public to see, it refers to the whistleblowers as "collaborators."

FDA refers to congressional staff as "ancillary actors."

FDA refers to the newspaper reporters as "media outlet actors."

These memos make the FDA sound more like the East German Stasi than a consumer protection agency in a free country.

At the beginning of Commissioner Hamburg's term she said whistleblowers exposed critical issues within FDA.

She vowed to create a culture that values whistleblowers.

In fact, in 2009, she said, and I quote, "I think whistleblowers serve an important role."

I wanted to believe Commissioner Hamburg when she testified before the Senate during her confirmation.

I wanted to believe her when she said she would protect whistleblowers at the FDA.

However, the facts now appear very different.

In this case the FDA invaded the privacy of multiple whistleblowers.

It hacked into their private e-mail accounts and used sophisticated keystroke logging software to monitor their every move online.

When an FDA supervisor was placed under oath in the course of an equal employment opportunity complaint, he testified that the FDA was conducting "routine security monitoring."

That is false.

This monitoring was anything but routine.

It was targeted specifically at five whistleblowers.

It intentionally captured their private emails to attorneys, Congress, and the Office of Special Counsel.

The internal documents show that this was a unique, highly sophisticated, and highly specialized operation.

According to the Office of Inspector General, the FDA had no evidence of any criminal wrong-doing by the whistleblowers.

This massive campaign of spying was not just an invasion of privacy; it was specifically designed to intercept communications that are protected by law.

The Office of Special Counsel is an agency created by Congress to receive whistleblower complaints and protect whistleblowers from retaliation.

The law protects communications with the Special Counsel as a way to encourage whistleblowers to report waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement, or threats to public safety without fear of retaliation.

The FDA knew that contacts between whistleblowers and the Office of Special Counsel are privileged and confidential.

But, the James Bond wanna-be's at the FDA just didn't care.

In the end, the self-appointed spies turned out to be more like the bumbling Maxwell Smart.

Along with their own internal memos about the spying, the fruits of their labor were also accidentally posted on the Internet.

It's tens of thousands of pages of emails and pictures of the whistleblowers' computer screens, containing some of the very same information that the FDA bureaucrats were so keen to keep secret.

When I started asking questions about this, FDA officials seemed to suffer from a sudden bout of collective amnesia.

It took them more than six months to answer my letter from last January.

When I pushed for a reply during those six months, FDA told my staff that that the response would take time to make sure it was accurate and complete.

When I finally got the response on Friday, it doesn't even answer the simplest of questions, such as who authorized this targeted spy ring.

Worse than that, it is misleading in its denials about intentionally intercepting communications with Congress.

When I asked them why they couldn't just answer some simple questions, they told my staff that the response was under review by the "appropriate officials in the Administration."

The non-answers and double-speak would have fit right into a George Orwell novel.

Of course, when my staff dug deeper and asked if the response was being reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget, FDA responded, no.

FDA refused to identify who within the Administration was holding up the FDA's response to my letter.

FDA refused to say how long it had been sitting on that person's desk or why it had to be approved by political officials outside the FDA.

Who is this shadowy figure conducting some secret review of FDA's response to my questions?

Why was there all of the sudden interest in exerting political control over the correspondence of this supposedly independent Federal agency?

We need answers and we need them now.

I have been demanding answers for six months.

For the past six months FDA has been telling me to be patient.

FDA has been telling me that they have "a good story to tell."

Apparently, though, there's someone in the Obama Administration who didn't want them to say anything for as long as possible.

I finally got Commissioner Hamburg on the phone in June.

Commissioner Hamburg personally assured me that the FDA was going to fully cooperate with my investigation.

Yet - the FDA has provided me with nothing but misleading and incomplete responses.

The FDA has failed to measure up to Commissioner Hamburg's pledge of cooperation.

The FDA buried its head in the sand in hopes that I will lose interest and go away.

That's not going to happen.

I don't care who is in charge of the executive branch, Republican or Democrat, I will not stop demanding answers.

When government bureaucrats obstruct and intercept my communications with protected whistleblowers, I will not stop.

When government bureaucrats stonewall for months on end, I will not stop.

When government bureaucrats try and muddy the waters and mislead, I will not stop.

I will get to the bottom of it.

I will continue to press the FDA until we know who authorized spying on whistleblowers.

Someone within the FDA specifically authorized spying on private communications with my office and with several other Members of Congress.

Someone at FDA specifically authorized spying on private communications with Congressman Van Hollen's office.

Someone at FDA specifically authorized spying on private communications with staff at the Senate Special Committee on Aging.

Someone at FDA specifically authorized spying on private communications with the Office of Special Counsel.

These whistleblowers thought the FDA was approving drugs and treatments that it shouldn't.

These whistleblowers thought the FDA was caving to pressure from the companies that were applying for FDA approval.

They have a right to express those concerns without fear of retaliation.

But after doing so, two of them were fired.

Two more were forced to leave FDA.

And five of them were subjected to an intense spying campaign.

Senior FDA officials may have broken the law.

They authorized the capturing of personal email passwords through keystroke logging software.

That potentially allowed them to log in to the whistleblowers' personal email accounts and access emails that were never even accessed from a work computer.

Without a subpoena or warrant, that would be a criminal violation.

After six months, FDA finally denied that occurred.

However, that denial was based on the word of one unnamed information technology employee involved in the monitoring.

We need a more thorough investigation than that.

I have asked the FDA to make that person and several other witnesses available for interviews with my staff.

We will see how cooperative FDA plans to be now.

I will continue to press the FDA to open every window and every door.

Eventually enough sunlight on this agency will cleanse it.

FDA gets paid to protect the public, not keep us in the dark.

Secret monitoring programs, spying on Congress, and retaliating against whistleblowers?this is a sad commentary on the state of affairs at the FDA.

I know there are hard-working and principled rank and file employees at FDA who care very much about their mission to protect the American public from harm.

Unfortunately, all too often those rank and file employees are unfairly tarnished by others such as those involved in this spy ring.

This is a sad commentary on President Obama's promise to the American people that this would be the most transparent Administration in history.

The American people can't lose faith in the FDA.

Unfortunately, after this debacle, I think that I have.

FDA has a lot of work to do to restore the public's trust.

-30-

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley has asked for a complete accounting of how the Department of Justice is responding to an incident last month in Louisiana where a senior civil rights lawyer for the department reportedly threatened a journalist about getting "on the Department of Justice's bad side" if the reporter quoted the lawyer.  The alleged incident occurred at a meeting advertised as a public event to address concerns about employment practices of the local fire department.

 

In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Grassley asked if the Department of Justice is conducting an investigation and if not, why not.  Grassley also asked for details about the Justice Department's "special rules" for statements reportedly cited by the department lawyer at the meeting.  And, he asked for the justification and an explanation of the threat reportedly leveled by the department official if the reporter didn't comply with orders about not quoting her.

 

Grassley said reports of the incident in New Iberia, Louisiana, including a complaint by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, are troubling and, if accurate, "confirm that there is a complete disconnect between the President's words about transparency and the actual conduct of his Administration."  Grassley referred to two memoranda issued by President Obama purportedly designed to usher in a "new era of open government" and to comments from White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew as recently as July 1, that the Obama Administration "has been the most transparent administration ever."

 

Click here for Grassley's July 17 letter to Holder.  Below is the text of the letter of inquiry.

 

July 17, 2012

 

Via Electronic Transmission

 

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.                           

Attorney General                       

U.S. Department of Justice                       

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.                          

Washington, DC 20530                         

 

Dear Attorney General Holder:

 

I write to express my concern about reports of an incident at a June 12, 2012 public meeting in New Iberia, Louisiana involving Rachel Hranitzky, a Senior Trial Attorney in the Civil Rights Division.[1] It is my understanding that a formal complaint about the incident has been sent to the Department of Justice.  I also understand that letters requesting information have been sent to Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez by Senator David Vitter, Congressman Jeff Landry and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

 

The June 22, 2012 letter from the Reporters Committee summarized the reports on the incident as follows:

 

It is our understanding that on [June 12, 2012], Ms. Hranitzky arrived at the meeting and immediately asked if any journalists were present. When a Daily Iberian reporter attending the meeting responded in the affirmative, she informed him that he could neither record the meeting nor quote her statements. According to other attendees, the meeting had been advertised as a public meeting intended to address concerns with the city fire department's hiring and promotion process.  However, citing 'special rules' of the Department of Justice for agency attorneys, Ms. Hranitzky instructed that her statements be neither recorded nor quoted. When the reporter questioned this instruction on the basis that Ms. Hranitzky was speaking at a public meeting, she apparently threatened him with the possibility that the DOJ could call his editors and publisher, and warned that he would not 'want to get on the Department of Justice's bad side.' Furthermore, it is our understanding that Ms. Hranitzky demanded the reporter leave the meeting, although?after making his objection known but agreeing not to quote her?he was ultimately allowed to remain.

 

According to one report on the incident, Ms. Hranitzky "'grew belligerent and threatening'" while speaking with the reporter.[2] After the meeting, she apparently told the reporter that she had been quoted in the past and gotten in trouble with the DOJ.[3] More specifically, Ms. Hranitzky told the reporter that the DOJ "'keeps a short leash on how their attorneys are quoted and she could get in big trouble if she were quoted in a newspaper.'"[4]

 

As you are well aware, on his first full day in office, President Obama declared openness and transparency to be touchstones of his administration, and ordered agencies to make it easier for the public to get information about the government.  Specifically, he issued two memoranda written in grand language and purportedly designed to usher in a "new era of open government."[5] As recently as July 1, the White House Chief of Staff, Jack Lew, told a television audience that the Obama Administration "has been the most transparent administration ever."[6]

 

The reports about the incident in New Iberia and the existence of a DOJ policy or "special rules" which were the cause of the incident, are troubling.  If accurate, the reports further confirm that there is a complete disconnect between the President's words about transparency and the actual conduct of his Administration.

Transparency and open government must be more than just pleasant sounding words found in memos and sound bites in television interviews.  They are essential to the functioning of a democratic government.  Moreover, if the reports about the incident and the existence of a DOJ policy or DOJ "special rules" are accurate, it would amount to a raw abuse of power and a complete disregard for the First Amendment and state open meetings laws.

I am seriously concerned about the reports regarding the incident in New Iberia.  Accordingly, please respond to the following questions and requests for information:

1.            Is the DOJ, or the DOJ Inspector General, conducting an investigation of the incident in New Iberia?

 

2.            If the DOJ is conducting an investigation, identify who is conducting it and describe in detail the scope of the investigation.  If the investigation is being conducted by members of the Civil Rights Division, explain how they do not have a conflict of interest.  If the DOJ is not conducting an investigation, explain why no investigation has been commenced.

 

3.            If the DOJ is conducting an investigation, provide a copy of the final report from that investigation when it is completed.

 

4.            Set forth in detail the DOJ's version of the events that took place at the public meeting in New Iberia.

 

5.            If the reports are accurate and Ms. Hranitzky told the reporter that he could not quote anything she said at the public meeting, provide a citation to the legal authority justifying that statement.  If there is no legal authority supporting the statement, expressly acknowledge that fact.

 

6.            Does the DOJ have a policy or "special rules," written or unwritten, regarding the recording or quotation of statements made by its employees at public meetings?  If there is a written policy or written rules, provide a copy.  If there is an unwritten policy or unwritten rules, describe the policy or rules in detail.

 

7.            If the DOJ has a policy or "special rules," written or unwritten, regarding the recording or quotation of statements made by its employees at public meetings, identify: (a) when that policy or those rules were initiated, (b) who is the author of the policy or rules and (c) the rationale or justification for the adoption of the policy or rules.  Also, identify the legal authority supporting the existence of such a policy or such rules given the protections for freedom of speech and freedom of the press under the First Amendment.  If such analysis was previously conducted and is set forth in a document, provide a copy of that document.

 

8.            According to the reports, Ms. Hranitzky told the reporter that unless he complied with her orders about not quoting her, the DOJ might contact his editors or publisher and he would not want to get on the DOJ's "bad side."  Have DOJ employees been instructed to use or had it suggested to them that they could use the DOJ "bad side" statement or any other similar threat tactic when dealing with members of the media?  If so, set forth in detail (a) the circumstances under which the instructions or suggestions were made and (b) the justification for such an instruction or suggestion being given.

 

9.            Has the DOJ previously disciplined or reprimanded its employees, in any manner, whether officially or unofficially, if the statements they make at public meetings are quoted by the media?  If so, please explain in detail the circumstances under which such discipline has occurred and/or could occur.

 

10.        The reports on the incident in New Iberia referenced a DOJ policy or "special rules" related to employees' interactions with members of the media and their speaking at public meetings.  Even if no official policy or rules exist, is the DOJ investigating whether any practices exist or whether orders have been given to DOJ employees by their supervisors about the employees' interactions with members of the media and their speaking at public meetings.  If the DOJ is conducting an investigation, identify who is conducting it and describe in detail the scope of the investigation.  Also, if the DOJ is conducting an investigation, provide a copy of the final report from that investigation.  If the DOJ is not conducting an investigation, explain why no investigation has been commenced.

 

11.        If a DOJ employee speaks at a public meeting in his or her official capacity, is the reporting on or recording of the employee's statements subject to state open meetings laws, such as the one that exists in Louisiana?  If not, explain why you maintain that the statements are not subject to open meetings laws.  Also, if not, identify what laws or rules, the DOJ is subject to or follows in connection with the recording of a public meeting at which a DOJ employee speaks in his or her official capacity.  If your answer includes a reference to internal DOJ rules, provide a copy.

 

12.        Was the meeting in New Iberia subject to Louisiana's open meetings law?  If you maintain that it was not, explain your response in detail.

 

13.        Since the publication of the reports on the incident in New Iberia, have DOJ employees been given any instructions or training on how they are to interact with individuals, including members of the media, attending public meetings?  If so, and if those instructions or that training was in written format, provide a copy.  If so, and if the instructions or training was not in written format, describe it in detail.  If there have not been any instructions or training given, explain why that is so.

 

14.        Since 2007, has the DOJ received any complaints, whether informal or formal, regarding statements or conduct by its employees at a public meeting, proceeding or event similar to Ms. Hranitzky's reported statements and conduct in  New Iberia?  If so, identify each such incident in detail.  For each such incident, provide a copy of the written complaint or report that the DOJ received and a copy of any written response by the DOJ.

 

15.        Provide copies of all written responses by the DOJ to any inquiries, letters or complaints about the incident at the meeting in New Iberia.

 

16.        Provide copies of the notices or advertisements for the meeting in New Iberia.

 

17.        Provide copies of any public statements or comments made by the DOJ on the incident at the meeting in New Iberia.

 

18.        Identify the case or cases which were the subject of the meeting in New Iberia, including the case name(s) and docket number(s).

 

19.        Provide a copy of the ruling or consent decree issued in the case or cases which were the subject of the meeting in New Iberia.

 

20.        Provide copies of any written statements or comments issued by the DOJ regarding the case or cases which were the subject of the meeting in New Iberia.

 

21.        Provide copies of any written DOJ policy, directive or guidance regarding DOJ employees speaking with members of the media.

 

I ask that you provide written answers and documents by August 17, 2012.

 

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley

Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee

 

Cc: Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee

 

 



[1] Matthew Beaton, "'DOJ practice' slammed by politicos, group," The Daily Iberian  (July 8, 2012) (available at http://www.iberianet.com/news/doj-practice-slammed-by-politicos-group/article_32a8d028-c8b7-11e1-aa3d-0019bb2963f4.html).

[2] Matthew Volkov, "Civil Rights Division Lawyer Under Fire for Threatening Reporter at Public Hearing,"  Mainjustice.Com (July 9, 2012) (available at http://www.mainjustice.com/2012/07/09/civil-rights-division-lawyer-under-fire-for-threatening-reporter-at-public-hearing/print/).

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Memorandum from President Barak Obama Re: Freedom of Information Act (Jan. 21, 2009) (available at www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/freedom-information-act); Memorandum from President Barak Obama Re: Transparency and Open Government (Jan. 21, 2009) (available at www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/transparency-and-open-government).

[6] Josh Feldman, "Candy Crowley Calls Out President Obama For Executive Privilege Hypocrisy On Fast & Furious," Mediaite.com (July 1, 2012) (available at http://www.mediaite.com/tv/candy-crowley-calls-out-president-obama-for-executive-privilege-hypocrisy-on-fast-furious/).

Pages