DOCSLIB.ORG

Confirmation Hearings on Federal Appointments-William P

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

S. HRG. 102-505, Pt. 2 CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS-WILLIAM P. BARR HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SECt .D CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON APPOINTMENTS TO THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY NOVEMBER 12 AND 13, 1991 Part 2 Serial No. J-102-7 Prin ed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary S5.-2 - 33 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 53-053 WASHINGTON : 1992 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware, Chairman EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts STROM THURMOND, South Carolina HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah DENNIS DzCONCINI, Arizona ALAN K. SIMPSON, Wyoming PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa HOWELL HEFLIN, Alabama ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania PAUL SIMON, Illinois HANK BROWN, Colorado HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin RONALD A. KLAw, Chief Counsel Jznuzy J. PECK, Staff Director Tanmy L. WoonN, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director CONTENTS Hearings held on: Page Tuesday, November 12, 1991 .................................................................................. 1 Wednesday, November 13,1991 ............................................................................. 55 STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Biden, H on. Joseph R ., Jr .............................................................................................. 1 T hurm ond, H on. Strom .................................................................................................. 3 Kennedy, Hon. Edward M .............................................................................................. 5 Hatch, Hon. Orrin G.................................. ...... ...... .... 5 DeC oncini, H on. Dennis .................................................................................................. 7 G rassley, H on. Charles E ............................................................................................... 8 Leahy, H on. Patrick J .................................................................................................... 9 Sim pson, H on. A lan K .................................................................................................... 12 S im on , H on . P aul ............................................................................................................. 13 B rown , H on. Hank ........................................................................................................... 13 Kohl, H on. H erbert ......................................................................................................... 14 H efl in, H on. H ow ell ........................................................................................................ 73 CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1991 Barr, Hon. William P., to be Attorney General of the United States ................... 15 WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1991 Barr, Hon. William P., to be Attorney General of the United States ................... 55 ALPHABETICAL LIST AND SUBMITTED MATERIAL Barr, Hon. William P.: Testim on y .................................................................................................................. 15, 55 Simon, Senator Paul: New York Times editorial, entitled "A High-Tech Watergate," dated Oct. 2 1, 19 9 1 ................................................................................................................... 8 4 APPENDIX B iographical questionnaire ............................................................................................ 153 Responses to written questions ....................................................................... 173, 184, 222 CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF WILLIAM P. BARR TO BE ATTORNEY GEN- ERAL OF THE UNITED STATES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1991 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:18 p.m., in room SD- 226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (chairman of the committee), presiding. Present: Senators Biden, Kennedy, Metzenbaum, DeConcini, Leahy, Heflin, Simon, Kohl, Thurmond, Hatch, Simpson, Grassley, Specter, and Brown. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BIDEN The CHAIRMAN. Before we begin the hearing, I want the record to show that last night I attended a basketball game, the Milwau- kee Bucks versus the Philadelphia 76er's, as a consequence of the kind generosity of the Senator from Wisccnsin, who has a mild in- terest in the Milwaukee Bucks. And I must say I was publicly em- barrassed because as he was listening to the game heading home, apparently the announcer said, "And there's Senator Biden rooting for the 76er's." He has just presented me with a pen, the Milwau- kee Bucks. I will try to do better next time, Senator, but thank you nonetheless for accommodating my ability to see the game. Senator DECONCINI. An endorsement? The CHAIRMAN. Well, yes, it is an endorsement of Wisconsin. Senator LEAHY. Of Senator Kohl. The CHAIRMAN. At any rate, it is always easy to endorse Senator Kohl. Well, welcome, General. It is a pleasure to have you here. It is a delight to have you before the committee, and I am sure you are delighted that we have finally reached the point that we are here. You know this committee well, and I have enjoyed our work to- gether in your previous incarnation. I look forward to us being able to continue to work together. You know the process. I have an opening statement. I will invite my colleagues, if they have brief opening statements, to make theirs, and then we will invite you both to introduce your family and make an opening statement and then we have some questions, if we may. _ I _ II . 2 Today the Judiciary Committee opens its hearings on the nomi- nation of William Barr to be Attorney General of the United States. The Office of Attorney General is unique among the President's Cabinet. The Attorney General is a member of the President's ad- ministration, but his allegiance is not to the President alone. As the Nation's most senior lawyer, the Attorney General's oath of office-to defend the Constitution and to faithfully execute the laws of the land-takes on a special meaning. His commitment to that oath may not be compromised, even in the name of serving the President of the United States. To put it another way, the Attorney General is not the Presi- dent's personal lawyer. That role is served by the White House counsel. The Attorney General is more properly considered the peo- ple's lawyer. His allegiance must be to the public; he must protect and enforce the rights of all Americans. Of course, the Attorney General serves the President in many ways, and among others, he advises the President on the constitu- tionality or legality of proposed actions or policies; he assists the administration in determining what positions the Government will present in Federal courts; and he directs the Department of Justice in serving the legitimate goals of the administration in all law en- forcement matters. But he must also be prepared to tell the President, in my view, that a proposed course of action would violate the Constitution or the laws of the United States, even when that advice is not what the President wishes to hear. In short, while working to serve the President, the Attorney Gen- eral has the unique responsibilit to the public that requires him to maintain independence from the President's personal and politi- cal interests. Fulfilling one's duty to the President without surrendering the necessary independence presents a dilemma for every Attorney General, and it has presented a dilemma for every Attorney Gener- al in the past. Understanding that these competing responsibilities must be carefully balanced is one of the most important attributes an Attorney General, in my view, can bring to this job. It is my opinion that, in recent years, the Attorney General and other senior officials within the Department of Justice have not always found the proper balance between these two competing in- terests. There has been a tendency, in my view, to blur the distinction between the role of Attorney General and the Justice Department on the one hand, and the White House counsel on the other. The country, in my view, is best served when these roles are clearly delineated and purposely separated. The rule of law is best preserved in this Nation when our Attorney General is dedicated to the law first, and the President's political agenda second. As a result, in these hearings, much of my focus will be on how Mr. Barr views the proper relationship between the Attorney Gen- eral and the President. This issue is of particular concern to me because, during his years in Government service, Mr. Barr has gained the reputation as a staunch defender of broad executive power. As I indicated to you earlier, General, I am going to want to talk to you about that. And I say that, by the way, not in any way sug- gesting you have compromised anything; just your philosophic view of the role of the Executive and the Congress. Because if your repu- tation as being such a staunch defender of broad executive power is deserved-and that is a matter to be determined in these hear- ings-Mr. Barr may be sympathetic to efforts of the current admin- istration to enlarge and consolidate the power of the Executive, with an accompanying disdain for the legitimate role of Congress as a coequal branch of the Government. Because the Attorney General's preeminent responsibility is to uphold the Constitution and enforce the law, he must adhere to the Constitution's division of responsibility
Recommended publications
  • Iqbal Brief: Barr Amicus Brief

    Iqbal Brief: Barr Amicus Brief

    No. 07-1015 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States __________ JOHN D. ASHCROFT, former Attorney General of the United States, and ROBERT MUELLER, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Petitioners, v. JAVAID IQBAL, et al., Respondents. __________ On Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit __________ BRIEF OF WILLIAM P. BARR, GRIFFIN BELL, BENJAMIN R. CIVILETTI, EDWIN MEESE III, WILLIAM S. SESSIONS, RICHARD THORNBURGH, AND WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS __________ Paul J. Larkin, Jr. Daniel J. Popeo 1314 Cleveland St. Richard A. Samp Alexandria, VA 22302 (Counsel of Record) (703) 931-1704 Washington Legal Foundation 2009 Mass. Ave, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 588-0302 Date: September 5, 2008 QUESTION PRESENTED 1. Whether a conclusory allegation that a cabinet-level officer or high-ranking official knew of, condoned, or agreed to subject a plaintiff to allegedly unconstitutional acts purportedly committed by subordinate officials is sufficient to state individual- capacity claims against those officials under Bivens. 2. Whether a cabinet-level officer or other high- ranking official may be held personally liable for the allegedly unconstitutional acts of subordinate officials on the ground that, as high-level supervisors, they had constructive notice of the discrimination allegedly carried out by such subordinate officials. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES................... iv INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE ...............1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE..................3 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................5 ARGUMENT...............................11 I. THE DECISION BELOW IMPROPERLY PERMITS COMPLAINTS TO PROCEED TO DISCOVERY BASED ON MERE CONCLUSORY ASSERTIONS OF WRONGDOING.......................11 II.
  • Justices' Profiles Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School

    Justices' Profiles Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School

    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Supreme Court Preview Conferences, Events, and Lectures 1995 Section 1: Justices' Profiles Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School, "Section 1: Justices' Profiles" (1995). Supreme Court Preview. 35. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview/35 Copyright c 1995 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview WARREN E. BURGER IS DEAD AT 87 Was Chief Justice for 17 Years Copyright 1995 The New York Times Company The New York Times June 26, 1995, Monday Linda Greenhouse Washington, June 25 - Warren E. Burger, who retired to apply like an epithet -- overruled no major in 1986 after 17 years as the 15th Chief Justice of the decisions from the Warren era. United States, died here today at age 87. The cause It was a further incongruity that despite Chief was congestive heart failure, a spokeswoman for the Justice Burger's high visibility and the evident relish Supreme Court said. with which he used his office to expound his views on An energetic court administrator, Chief Justice everything from legal education to prison Burger was in some respects a transitional figure management, scholars and Supreme Court despite his tenure, the longest for a Chief Justice in commentators continued to question the degree to this century. He presided over a Court that, while it which he actually led the institution over which he so grew steadily more conservative with subsequent energetically presided.
  • Presidential Files; Folder: 9/25/78 [2]; Container 92

    Presidential Files; Folder: 9/25/78 [2]; Container 92

    9/25/78 [2] Folder Citation: Collection: Office of Staff Secretary; Series: Presidential Files; Folder: 9/25/78 [2]; Container 92 To See Complete Finding Aid: http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/library/findingaids/Staff_Secretary.pdf WITHDRAWAL SHEET (PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES) FORM OF CORRESPONDENTS OR TiTLE DAliE RESTRICTION DOCUMENT Memo Harold Brown to Pres. Carter, w/attachments 4 pp., ·r!=!:Defense Summary 9/22/78 A , ' Cabinet Summari. s Andrew Ypung to Pres. Carter~ 1 pg., re:UN activities 9/15/78 9/22/78 A Capinet' Summa:ri s Cal.ifq:no . to Pres. Carter, 3 pp. , re: Personnel "changes 9/22/7.$ c .:~ 0 '· i ~"d. 'I ".'' ' a ~~~·.0 .:t'' '~ ,, 11 , .. "~ •) •· ·~· ',,• \:l,. ,j; ~··~-·< ·-·... • 1 ' .} "I. " 1~ •: , dJ~ ·, '0 ·., " ~ ~r-~ 1\ ~ '·;P. , .. " . ,, ~ 1 , .. ··~ ·:. •·,· '"" <':'• :..·) .,0 / ~ ;w . • '' .• ~ U',• "·',, If' ~' • ·~ ~ ~· • ~ c , " ill" : " ,·, "''t> ''., ' : "."" ~:~~.,,~ . .. r " ·i ' '· ·: ., .~.~ ' 1. ~. ' , .. ;, ~, (• '• ·f." J '',j> '~~'!, ~' -o," :~ ~ ~ e' . " ' ~ ,· J ', I I. FIWE LOCATION Carter Presidenti,al Pap.ers-Staff Offices, Office .of Staff Sec. -Presidenti?l HandwritiRg File, 9/25/78 [2] Box-103 R.ESTRICTtiON CODES (AI Closed by Executive Order 1235S'governing access to national security information. (6) .Closed by statute or by the agency Which originated tine document. (C) Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in the donor's deed of gif,t. ~. NATIONAL ARCHIV.S AND RECORDS AOMINISTRA TION. NA FORM 1429 (6-8,5) ' . THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON 9/25/78 Tim Kraft The attached was returned in the President's outbox: It is forwarded to you for appropriate han<D:ing. Rick Hutcheson cc: Frank Moore THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON 9/25/78 rick-~- although pr.esident is sending note to tim ...
  • Fewer Hands, More Mercy: a Plea for a Better Federal Clemency System

    Fewer Hands, More Mercy: a Plea for a Better Federal Clemency System

    FEWER HANDS, MORE MERCY: A PLEA FOR A BETTER FEDERAL CLEMENCY SYSTEM Mark Osler*† INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 465 I. A SWAMP OF UNNECESSARY PROCESS .................................................. 470 A. From Simplicity to Complexity ....................................................... 470 B. The Clemency System Today .......................................................... 477 1. The Basic Process ......................................................................... 477 a. The Pardon Attorney’s Staff ..................................................... 478 b. The Pardon Attorney ................................................................ 479 c. The Staff of the Deputy Attorney General ................................. 481 d. The Deputy Attorney General ................................................... 481 e. The White House Counsel Staff ................................................ 483 f. The White House Counsel ......................................................... 484 g. The President ............................................................................ 484 2. Clemency Project 2014 ................................................................ 485 C. The Effect of a Bias in Favor of Negative Decisions ...................... 489 II. BETTER EXAMPLES: STATE AND FEDERAL .......................................... 491 A. State Systems ................................................................................... 491 1. A Diversity
  • Bar Unveils Podcasts Bush to Be Judged on Iraq War

    Bar Unveils Podcasts Bush to Be Judged on Iraq War

    ® April 2006 The Monthly Newspaper of the Philadelphia Bar Association Vol. 35, No. 4 Liasson: Bar Unveils Podcasts Bush to Be Judged on Iraq War by Jeff Lyons President Bush’s legacy will be deter- mined by the outcome of the war in Iraq, National Public Radio political cor- respondent Mara Liasson told members of the Association at the March 23 Quar- terly Meeting and Luncheon. The Association also honored Immed- iate-Past Chancellor Andrew A. Chirls at the event. Chancellor Alan M. Feldman lauded Chirls for his accomplishments during 2005, including his outreach to immigrant communities and his com- mitment to judicial independence. Feldman presented Chirls with a gold box, an exact replica of the one present- ed to Andrew Hamilton for his defense of John Peter Zenger in 1735. The box is presented annually to the immediate- past Chancellor and is in-scribed with the message “acquired not by money, but by character.” “In 2005, we tried to narrow the gaps Photo illustration by Kate Maxwell between our immigrant communities in Association Programs Available for Download Philadelphia and the legal system. We wanted justice to speak all languages,” by Mark A. Tarasiewicz er Programs, Chancellor’s Column, above categories and automatically continued on page 13 Member Benefits, Legislative Update, download the latest podcasts to your Members can now take the Phila- Hot Interviews with Very Cool People, MP3 player, such as an Apple iPod. delphia Bar Association “on the go” Career Corner and Law Practice You can now download the Bar In This Issue ... with the official April 1 launch of the Management.
  • Trump Says One Thing and Does Another on Criminal Justice by Lea Hunter, Ed Chung, and Akua Amaning

    Trump Says One Thing and Does Another on Criminal Justice by Lea Hunter, Ed Chung, and Akua Amaning

    FACT SHEET Trump Says One Thing and Does Another on Criminal Justice By Lea Hunter, Ed Chung, and Akua Amaning This factsheet contains an update. Note: An earlier version of this list appeared in American Progress’s Infographic: President Trump is Falsely Claiming He is a Criminal Justice Reformer. President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed ownership of criminal reform because he signed the FIRST STEP Act—a bipartisan federal sentencing and prison reform bill. A month after signing the bill, he proclaimed, “I did criminal justice reform, nobody else. I did it. Without me, you don’t have criminal justice reform.” In fall 2019, he again declared, “I did criminal justice reform, which President Obama could not get approved—which the media never talks about. If President Obama got criminal justice reform done, it would be front-page stories all over the place. I got it done.”1 But these claims fly in the face of nearly every action this administration has taken, most of which are antithetical to reform efforts. Too often, the full context of the Trump administration’s record on criminal jus- tice reform is obscured by celebrities visiting the White House and award ceremo- nies.2 However, behind the scenes, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) regularly contravenes the efforts of the criminal justice reform movement. Collected here are a list of those anti-reform actions to date: 1. Restricted clemency to only those who are celebrities, well-connected individuals, or have a personal affiliation with the president3* 2. Encouraged the use of excessive police force on peaceful Black Lives Matter protestors4* 3.
  • Who Is the Attorney General's Client?

    Who Is the Attorney General's Client?

    \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\87-3\NDL305.txt unknown Seq: 1 20-APR-12 11:03 WHO IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S CLIENT? William R. Dailey, CSC* Two consecutive presidential administrations have been beset with controversies surrounding decision making in the Department of Justice, frequently arising from issues relating to the war on terrorism, but generally giving rise to accusations that the work of the Department is being unduly politicized. Much recent academic commentary has been devoted to analyzing and, typically, defending various more or less robust versions of “independence” in the Department generally and in the Attorney General in particular. This Article builds from the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Board, in which the Court set forth key principles relating to the role of the President in seeing to it that the laws are faithfully executed. This Article draws upon these principles to construct a model for understanding the Attorney General’s role. Focusing on the question, “Who is the Attorney General’s client?”, the Article presumes that in the most important sense the American people are the Attorney General’s client. The Article argues, however, that that client relationship is necessarily a mediated one, with the most important mediat- ing force being the elected head of the executive branch, the President. The argument invokes historical considerations, epistemic concerns, and constitutional structure. Against a trend in recent commentary defending a robustly independent model of execu- tive branch lawyering rooted in the putative ability and obligation of executive branch lawyers to alight upon a “best view” of the law thought to have binding force even over plausible alternatives, the Article defends as legitimate and necessary a greater degree of presidential direction in the setting of legal policy.
  • DAMIEN GUEDES, Et Al., Applican

    DAMIEN GUEDES, Et Al., Applican

    App. No. ___ -------------------- In The Supreme Court of the United States -------------------- DAMIEN GUEDES, et al., Applicants-Appellants, v. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES, et al., Respondents-Appellees. -------------------- APPLICATION FOR STAY OF IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF AGENCY REGULATION PENDING A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI -------------------- To the Honorable Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., as Circuit Justice for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 23 and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651, the Applicants (Plaintiffs-Appellants below) Damien Guedes, Shane Roden, Firearms Policy Foundation, Madison Society Foundation, Inc., Florida Carry, Inc., David Codrea, Scott Heuman, and Owen Monroe respectfully request that this Court stay the implementation and enforcement against them of Respondents’ Final Rule relating to the revised construction of the definition of “machinegun” and application of that definition to so-called “bump-stock-type devices,” 83 Fed. Reg. 66514, until the resolution of a forthcoming petition for writ of certiorari, and any subsequent proceedings, in this case. On April 1, 2019, the court of appeals issued its Opinion and Judgment in this expedited appeal, affirming (over vigorous dissent) the denial of a preliminary injunction. Opinion and Dissent, attached as Exhibit A; Judgment, attached as Exhibit B. The Judgment provided that the administrative stay of the effective date of the Bump Stock Rule, 83 Fed. Reg. 66,514 (Dec. 26, 2018), that was entered on the court’s own motion on March 23, 2019, will remain in effect for 48 hours from the time of the issuance of the opinion in this case to allow plaintiffs, if they wish, to seek a stay from the Supreme Court of the United States.
  • Capitol Insurrection at Center of Conservative Movement

    Capitol Insurrection at Center of Conservative Movement

    Capitol Insurrection At Center Of Conservative Movement: At Least 43 Governors, Senators And Members Of Congress Have Ties To Groups That Planned January 6th Rally And Riots. SUMMARY: On January 6, 2021, a rally in support of overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election “turned deadly” when thousands of people stormed the U.S. Capitol at Donald Trump’s urging. Even Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who rarely broke with Trump, has explicitly said, “the mob was fed lies. They were provoked by the President and other powerful people.” These “other powerful people” include a vast array of conservative officials and Trump allies who perpetuated false claims of fraud in the 2020 election after enjoying critical support from the groups that fueled the Capitol riot. In fact, at least 43 current Governors or elected federal office holders have direct ties to the groups that helped plan the January 6th rally, along with at least 15 members of Donald Trump’s former administration. The links that these Trump-allied officials have to these groups are: Turning Point Action, an arm of right-wing Turning Point USA, claimed to send “80+ buses full of patriots” to the rally that led to the Capitol riot, claiming the event would be one of the most “consequential” in U.S. history. • The group spent over $1.5 million supporting Trump and his Georgia senate allies who claimed the election was fraudulent and supported efforts to overturn it. • The organization hosted Trump at an event where he claimed Democrats were trying to “rig the election,” which he said would be “the most corrupt election in the history of our country.” • At a Turning Point USA event, Rep.
  • John Mitchell and the Crimes of Watergate Reconsidered Gerald Caplan Pacific Cgem Orge School of Law

    John Mitchell and the Crimes of Watergate Reconsidered Gerald Caplan Pacific Cgem Orge School of Law

    University of the Pacific Scholarly Commons McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles McGeorge School of Law Faculty Scholarship 2010 The akM ing of the Attorney General: John Mitchell and the Crimes of Watergate Reconsidered Gerald Caplan Pacific cGeM orge School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/facultyarticles Part of the Legal Biography Commons, and the President/Executive Department Commons Recommended Citation 41 McGeorge L. Rev. 311 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the McGeorge School of Law Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Book Review Essay The Making of the Attorney General: John Mitchell and the Crimes of Watergate Reconsidered Gerald Caplan* I. INTRODUCTION Shortly after I resigned my position as General Counsel of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department in 1971, I was startled to receive a two-page letter from Attorney General John Mitchell. I was not a Department of Justice employee, and Mitchell's acquaintance with me was largely second-hand. The contents were surprising. Mitchell generously lauded my rather modest role "in developing an effective and professional law enforcement program for the District of Columbia." Beyond this, he added, "Your thoughtful suggestions have been of considerable help to me and my colleagues at the Department of Justice." The salutation was, "Dear Jerry," and the signature, "John." I was elated. I framed the letter and hung it in my office.
  • (PCLOB) on Various Issues Surrounding Surveillance Pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and Other Relevant Issues

    (PCLOB) on Various Issues Surrounding Surveillance Pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and Other Relevant Issues

    Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) on various issues surrounding surveillance pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and other relevant issues. I am Jake Laperruque, senior counsel for The Constitution Project at the Project On Government Oversight (POGO). POGO is a nonpartisan independent watchdog that investigates and exposes waste, corruption, abuse of power, and when the government fails to serve the public or silences those who report wrongdoing. We champion reforms to achieve a more effective, ethical, and accountable federal government that safeguards constitutional principles. The Constitution Project at POGO strives to protect individuals from improper and overbroad surveillance, especially when such surveillance is conducted in the name of national security. The Constitution Project has long advocated for increased accountability, oversight, and proper checks of a FISA process that is too often subject to scrutiny that is too weak.1 My testimony examines a variety of legal and policy issues across a wide array of surveillance authorities; before discussing each of these issues in turn, I believe it is valuable to note several key observations relating to national security surveillance that affect virtually all of the issues FISA addresses. First, over the past several decades, FISA surveillance has significantly shifted in focus from counterespionage to counterterrorism. This has inherently pulled FISA into the realm of law enforcement investigations and activities. Yet, even as FISA has increasingly become a tool for domestic law enforcement, there has not been a similar shift in safeguards on these authorities to ensure the protection of due process and civil liberties that is expected of criminal proceedings.
  • 2016 ALUMNI AWARDS BIOGRAPHIES Joanna

    2016 ALUMNI AWARDS BIOGRAPHIES Joanna

    2016 ALUMNI AWARDS BIOGRAPHIES Joanna Visser Adjoian C’04, L’10 (Young Alumni Award) Joanna Visser Adjoian, Esq. is co-founder and Co-Director of the Youth Sentencing & Reentry Project (YSRP). YSRP uses direct service and policy advocacy to transform the experiences of children prosecuted in the adult criminal justice system, and to ensure fair and thoughtful resentencing and reentry for individuals who were sentenced to life without parole as children (“juvenile lifers”). Prior to co-founding YSRP, Joanna served as Associate Director and Staff Attorney of the Toll Public Interest Center at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, Penn Law Postgraduate Fellow at Juvenile Law Center, federal law clerk for Judge Joel Schneider in the United States District Court of the District of New Jersey, and family law paralegal at Philadelphia Legal Assistance. At Juvenile Law Center, Joanna coordinated the Pennsylvania Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Youth, and co-authored Amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court and state supreme courts on juvenile life without parole sentences. At the Toll Center, she oversaw the Center’s 26 student pro bono projects, offered guidance to more than 100 student leaders and directly supervised students in new and existing pro bono initiatives. Joanna is a 2014 Echoing Green Fellow, 2016 Claneil Emerging Leader Fellow, and a finalist for a 2016 Excellence in Advocacy Award from the Professional Women in Advocacy Conference. She chairs the Philadelphia Bar Association Public Interest Section's Legal Rights of Children Committee, and serves as a member of the Toll Public Interest Center Advisory Board.