DOCSLIB.ORG

Confirmation Hearing on the Nomination of James B. Comey, Jr., to Be Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Confirmation Hearing on the Nomination of James B. Comey, Jr., to Be Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation S. HRG. 113–850 CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF JAMES B. COMEY, JR., TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION JULY 9, 2013 Serial No. J–113–19 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 23–750 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking Member CHUCK SCHUMER, New York ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah DICK DURBIN, Illinois JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota JOHN CORNYN, Texas AL FRANKEN, Minnesota MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware TED CRUZ, Texas RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut JEFF FLAKE, Arizona MAZIE HIRONO, Hawaii KRISTINE LUCIUS, Chief Counsel and Staff Director KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director (II) C O N T E N T S JULY 9, 2013, 10:03 A.M. STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................ 3 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 1 prepared statement .......................................................................................... 87 PRESENTER Blumenthal, Hon. Richard, a U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut ........ 6 STATEMENT OF THE NOMINEE Witness List ............................................................................................................. 49 Comey, James B., Jr., of Connecticut, Nominee to be Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ....................................................................................... 8 Questionnaire and Biographical Information ................................................. 50 QUESTIONS Questions submitted to James B. Comey, Jr., by: Senator Feinstein ............................................................................................. 89 Senator Franken ............................................................................................... 92 Senator Grassley .............................................................................................. 94 Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................................ 99 Senator Whitehouse ......................................................................................... 100 ANSWERS Responses of James B. Comey, Jr., to questions submitted by: Senator Feinstein ............................................................................................. 102 Senator Franken ............................................................................................... 110 Senator Grassley .............................................................................................. 113 Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................................ 108 Senator Whitehouse ......................................................................................... 105 LETTERS RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO THE NOMINATION OF JAMES B. COMEY, JR., TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) et al., July 1, 2013, letter .................... 122 Constitution Project, The, July 2, 2013, letter ...................................................... 125 Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association (FBIAA), July 8, 2013, letter ...................................................................................................................... 145 Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy Associates (FBINAA), July 9, 2013, letter ....................................................................................................... 146 Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA), July 8, 2013, letter .. 141 Former Senior Department of Justice Officials, July 8, 2013, letter .................. 143 Former Senior Department of Justice Officials, July 10, 2013, letter ................ 147 Former United States Attorneys, July 3, 2013, letter .......................................... 133 International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), June 21, 2013, letter ....... 120 Major Cities Chiefs Association, June 28, 2013, letter ......................................... 121 National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO), July 3, 2013, letter ....... 138 Police Executive Research Forum, July 5, 2013, letter ........................................ 139 (III) CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF JAMES B. COMEY, JR., TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION TUESDAY, JULY 9, 2013, UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in Room SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. Present: Senators Leahy, Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Franken, Coons, Blumenthal, Hirono, Grassley, Hatch, Sessions, Cornyn, Lee, and Cruz. Chairman LEAHY. The hearing will come to order. And before we start, just so everybody understands, I want everyone to be able to watch this hearing. I do not want anybody in the audience to be blocked by anyone for any reason whatsoever. I want everybody to be able to watch it comfortably. I am directing the police, if any- body stands up and blocks the view of anybody in this hearing, that person will be removed. Whether they are demonstrating ei- ther for or against any position I might take, for or against any po- sition Senator Grassley or any other Senator might take, or for or against a position that Mr. Comey might take, that person will be removed. I do not think it is going to be necessary. I am sure every- body is going to want decorum, but I thought just so everybody would understand what the ground rules are, those are the ground rules. I have no idea how Senators will vote. More important, I want the American public to have a chance to be heard. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT Chairman LEAHY. Today, as we know, we will consider the nomi- nation of James Comey, Jr., to be the seventh Director of the Fed- eral Bureau of Investigation. The current Director, Robert Mueller, started just a week before the terrorist attacks of September 11th. We know our world has changed dramatically in that time. We have often debated how best to ensure our national security while protecting the freedom and the liberty and the privacy rights—the privacy rights—that define us as a great Nation. That debate is alive today, and this confirmation hearing provides us another op- portunity to evaluate existing policy and to correct our course. Few positions have as much impact on our liberty and our national se- (1) 2 curity as the Director of the FBI. And as the body that considers the President’s nominee, the Senate has an important role in this debate, and that debate, of course, begins here in this Committee. I welcome Mr. Comey and his family here today, and they will be introduced in a moment. He has had an outstanding career in law enforcement. He served as Deputy Attorney General. He has served as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York under President George W. Bush. He has worked in the private sector with Lockheed Martin, Bridgewater Associates, and at the law firm of McGuireWoods. When Mr. Comey appeared before this Committee in 2007, he de- scribed a dramatic hospital bedside confrontation with senior White House officials who were trying to get an ailing John Ashcroft, who was in the hospital, about to have serious surgery—or he had had it—to reauthorize an NSA surveillance program—a program that the Justice Department had concluded was illegal. As Deputy At- torney General, Mr. Comey showed courage and independence by standing firm against this attempt to circumvent the rule of law. I would want him to continue to demonstrate the same strength of character if he is confirmed as Director. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the FBI has dra- matically increased its national security and counterterrorism ef- forts, but that is a transition that has not been without problems. From National Security Letters to the latest revelations about the use of PATRIOT Act surveillance authorities, I remain concerned that we have not yet struck the right balance between the intel- ligence-gathering needs of the FBI and the privacy rights of Ameri- cans. We all agree that the FBI must have the tools necessary to help keep us safe from terrorism, but I hope that we can agree that this should not come at the expense of our constitutional rights. It is these constitutional rights that make us unique and great as a Nation. In recent weeks, Americans have become aware of the expansive scope of surveillance authorities granted to the FBI by the PA- TRIOT Act and other laws. We have heard administration officials defend these programs by saying that they are critical to identi- fying and connecting the so-called dots. But there are always going to be more dots to analyze and collect and try to connect, and when the Government is collecting data on millions of totally
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Youtube James Comey Full Testimony
    Youtube James Comey Full Testimony Sylvan usually trail anyway or tusks doucely when penetralian Gabe extemporised false and pliably. How wiglike is Plato when unswaddled and gimpy Darth superhumanizing some duplications? Stormless Renault press abruptly. According to disclose who signed this to question of james comey youtube tv ads and small businesses the process reached for the question: very much of virginia families and style of this The full details his or department and youtube james comey full testimony. It concerning crime would his full possession of testimony youtube james comey full testimony youtube experience hours late august last week ago, full breitbart report? Using a household name? Comey testifies before and walk away some dating can. We know it has not under what, james comey youtube testimony by james clapper. Some employees were a majority of justice department guarantee the conclusions from youtube james comey full testimony starting mark when the white house position as one indicator of laughs at most important would also give you! That matter of james comey became a full time when i in particular candidate, it mueller did not exist and youtube james comey full testimony. Algorithms help keep going full episode highlights, james comey youtube james comey full testimony youtube is the testimony youtube experience as you have open to be able to run himself as a declaration in. Former director james comey youtube james comey full testimony. Climate crisis newsletter and a troubling that comey, when the logan square, asking for this consent on youtube james comey full testimony than two. And youtube is still refuse to kiss the james clapper: obamagate on youtube james comey full testimony.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Investigation
    Protecting Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Investigation Background: Calls for a special prosecutor to investigate the Russian hacking of the 2016 election reached fever pitch after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey and then admitted it was because of the Russia investigation. Several months earlier, after public revelations that he had lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee about conversations he’d had with the Russian ambassador as a member of the Trump campaign, Attorney General Jeff Sessions had recused himself from any investigations related to Russia and the election. Therefore, the responsibility for naming a special counsel fell to Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, who, on May 17th named former FBI Director, Robert Mueller. Mueller has hired a crack team of legal experts, issued subpoenas, and impaneled multiple grand juries in his probe into all aspects of Russian interference in our elections – including potential Trump campaign collusion -- as well as other legal matters arising in the course of that investigation. Trump and his allies have repeatedly attacked Mueller’s investigation, raising concerns that he might fire Mueller and/or obstruct the investigation in other ways. Key points: The public, by a margin of more than 2-to-1, supports the Mueller investigation, as do many Republicans and Democrats in Congress. A recent poll shows that of those following the Russia scandal closely, nearly two-thirds (65%) now think that members of his campaign colluded with Russia to help sway the November election. Both the House Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader have defended Mr. Mueller when the issue of his removal has come up.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Gun Violence
    UCLA UCLA Public Law & Legal Theory Series Title Rethinking Gun Violence Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3mh6v370 Authors Greenberg, Mark Litman, Harry Publication Date 2010 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Rethinking Gun Violence Mark Greenberg* and Harry Litman** This working paper develops the argument of "Gun Violence and Gun Control" (also posted on SSRN), a short piece commissioned by the London Review of Books. We decided not to publish either paper, in part because we felt there were empirical issues that we were not in a position to assess. We welcome comments on either paper. The gun policy debate in the United States is in sorry shape. To exaggerate only slightly, the debate proceeds as if there were only two possible positions: for guns or against them. Both sides wave the banner of crime prevention. Fundamentally, however, their fight is not a considered argument over how best to reduce crime, but a clash between those who hate guns and those who love them. Guns for the anti-gun camp represent lawlessness, gangs, drug wars, vigilantes, and survivalist, federal government-hating fanatics. For the pro-gun side, guns are a symbol of self-reliance, the frontier spirit, individualism, resistance to tyranny. The passion of this symbolic fight over guns has greatly infected, if not overwhelmed, serious empirical analysis of how to reduce crime. Instead of a careful discussion of the efficacy and costs of possible gun-violence reduction measures, much of the debate in the United States takes the form of a partisan shouting match over whether we should have more guns or fewer guns.
    [Show full text]
  • Trump's Disinformation 'Magaphone'. Consequences, First Lessons and Outlook
    BRIEFING Trump's disinformation 'magaphone' Consequences, first lessons and outlook SUMMARY The deadly insurrection at the US Capitol on 6 January 2021 was a significant cautionary example of the offline effects of online disinformation and conspiracy theories. The historic democratic crisis this has sparked − adding to a number of other historic crises the US is currently battling − provides valuable lessons not only for the United States, but also for Europe and the democratic world. The US presidential election and its aftermath saw domestic disinformation emerging as a more visible immediate threat than disinformation by third countries. While political violence has been the most tangible physical effect of manipulative information, corrosive conspiracy theories have moved from the fringes to the heart of political debate, normalising extremist rhetoric. At the same time, recent developments have confirmed that the lines between domestic and foreign attempts to undermine democracy are increasingly blurred. While the perceived weaknesses in democratic systems are − unsurprisingly − celebrated as a victory for authoritarian state actors, links between foreign interference and domestic terrorism are under growing scrutiny. The question of how to depolarise US society − one of a long list of challenges facing the Biden Administration − is tied to the polarised media environment. The crackdown by major social media platforms on Donald Trump and his supporters has prompted far-right groups to abandon the established information ecosystem to join right-wing social media. This could further accelerate the ongoing fragmentation of the US infosphere, cementing the trend towards separate realities. Ahead of the proposed Democracy Summit − a key objective of the Biden Administration − tempering the 'sword of democracy' has risen to the top of the agenda on both sides of the Atlantic.
    [Show full text]
  • The Torture Memos: the Conflict Between a Shift in U.S
    Hofstra Law Review Volume 33 | Issue 3 Article 6 2005 The orT ture Memos: The onflicC t Between a Shift in U.S. Policy Towards a Condemnation of Human Rights and International Prohibitions Against the Use of Torture Jonathan Canfield Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Canfield, Jonathan (2005) "The orT ture Memos: The onflC ict Between a Shift in .SU . Policy Towards a Condemnation of Human Rights and International Prohibitions Against the Use of Torture," Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 33: Iss. 3, Article 6. Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol33/iss3/6 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Canfield: The Torture Memos: The Conflict Between a Shift in U.S. Policy To NOTE THE TORTURE MEMOS: THE CONFLICT BETWEEN A SHIFT IN U.S. POLICY TOWARDS A CONDEMNATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL PROHIBITIONS AGAINST THE USE OF TORTURE [In the United States, the use of torture] is categorically denounced as a matter ofpolicy and as a tool of state authority.... No official of the government,federal, state or local, civilian or military, is authorized to commit or to instruct anyone else to commit torture. Nor may any official condone or tolerate torture in any form.... No exceptional circumstances may be invoked as a justification of torture.
    [Show full text]
  • Advising Clients After Critical Legal Studies and the Torture Memos
    Texas A&M University School of Law Texas A&M Law Scholarship Faculty Scholarship 11-2011 Advising Clients after Critical Legal Studies and the Torture Memos Milan Markovic Texas A&M University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Milan Markovic, Advising Clients after Critical Legal Studies and the Torture Memos, 114 W. Va. L. Rev. 109 (2011). Available at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/344 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Texas A&M Law Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Texas A&M Law Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ADVISING CLIENTS AFTER CRITICAL LEGAL STUDIES AND THE TORTURE MEMOS Milan Markovic* I. INTRODUCTION .................................................... 110 II. THE MODEL RULES, ENFORCEMENT, AND WHY LAWYERS OBEY .............. 114 A. The Underenforcement of ProfessionalResponsibility Rules 114 B. Compliance and Self-Interest ...................... 117 III. MODEL RULE 2.1 AND THE PROBLEM OF COMPLIANCE ....... ........ 119 IV. THE TORTURE MEMO CONTROVERSY AND RULE 2.1 ................ 124 A. Background ............................ ...... 125 B. The OPR Report ......................... ...... 128 1. The Investigation and OPR's Standards .... ...... 128 2. The OPR's Findings .................... ..... 130 C. The Margolis Memo ....................... ..... 132 1. Standards Applied .................. ........ 133 2. Application to Yoo..... ..................... 135 V. THE MARGOLIS MEMO's FLAWED ACCOUNT ................ ...... 137 A. Reliance on Indeterminacy ..............................137 B. Does Margolis's Account of Rule 2.1 Follow from the Ethical Rules?......................................139 C. Social Utility.............................. 141 VI. AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW OF RULE 2.1 ..............................
    [Show full text]
  • Narrowly Tailoring the COVID-19 Response
    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Articles Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship 2020 Narrowly Tailoring the COVID-19 Response Craig Konnoth University of Colorado Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Health Law and Policy Commons, Labor and Employment Law Commons, Legislation Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Citation Information Craig Konnoth, Narrowly Tailoring the COVID-19 Response, 11 Calif. L. Rev. Online 193 (2020), https://www.californialawreview.org/narrowly-tailoring-covid-19-response/, available at https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles/1310/. Copyright Statement Copyright protected. Use of materials from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. Permission to publish or reproduce is required. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship at Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Narrowly Tailoring the COVID-19 Response Craig Konnoth* Introduction ............................................................................................ 193 I. Overview of the Coronavirus Response .............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Political Control of Federal Prosecutions: Looking Back and Looking Forward
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2009 Political Control of Federal Prosecutions: Looking Back and Looking Forward Daniel C. Richman Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Law and Politics Commons, and the President/Executive Department Commons Recommended Citation Daniel C. Richman, Political Control of Federal Prosecutions: Looking Back and Looking Forward, 58 DUKE L. J. 2087 (2009). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/2464 This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. POLITICAL CONTROL OF FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS: LOOKING BACK AND LOOKING FORWARD DANIEL RICHMANt ABSTRACT This Essay explores the mechanisms of control over federal criminal enforcement that the administration and Congress used or failed to use during George W. Bush's presidency. It gives particular attention to Congress, not because legislators played a dominant role, but because they generally chose to play such a subordinate role. My fear is that the media focus on management inadequacies or abuses within the Justice Department during the Bush administrationmight lead policymakers and observers to overlook the
    [Show full text]
  • Senate the Senate Met at 9:30 A.M
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 109 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 151 WASHINGTON, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2005 No. 162 Senate The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was Make them content to sow good seeds RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME called to order by the President pro in the knowledge that the harvest is The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under tempore (Mr. STEVENS). certain. the previous order, the leadership time Help each of us to be led by You be- is reserved. PRAYER yond the portals of selfishness to the spaciousness of service. Love us until The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of- f fered the following prayer: we can live and love as we have been Let us pray. loved by You. We pray this in Your lov- Eternal spirit, by whose power people ing Name. Amen. MORNING BUSINESS are moved to work for the common f The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under good of humanity, keep us aware of the previous order, there will be a pe- Your presence. Strengthen us by the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE riod for the transaction of morning memory of people who invested their The President pro tempore led the business for up to 30 minutes, with the lives to serve Your purposes. Teach us Pledge of Allegiance, as follows: first half of the time under the control that You can bring order from chaos. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the of the minority leader or his designee Empower our Senators today to do United States of America, and to the Repub- and the second half of the time under Your will.
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting the Moment with Urgency and Resolve, Berkeley Law Responds to Legal
    BERKELEY LAW Transcript Magazine Fall 2020 Volume 55 | TRANSCRIPT | FALL 2020 FALL ALSO: A determined fight against toxic chemicals Page 12 Star hires bring new faculty total to 19 since 2017 Page 14 Cooking a tasty foodtech niche for startups Pages 16, 63 Meeting the Moment With urgency and resolve, Berkeley Law responds to legal issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and the surging ESSENTIAL WORKERS: Zoë Polk, Executive Director, racial justice movement. Pages 20-39 East Bay Community Law Center. Features COVID and 20 Community When COVID-19 suddenly put lives and livelihoods in peril, Berkeley Law students and faculty dove in to help those who are most vulnerable to the pandemic’s impact. Racing 30 Forward From decades-old advocacy to new efforts sparked by the killing of George Floyd, people throughout the law school are involved in numerous projects that aim to bolster racial justice. 20 Column 2 From the Dean 46 While disappointed that the school community cannot gather in person, Erwin Chemerinsky draws inspiration and energy from the indomitable spirit shown throughout Berkeley Law. 16 Executive Director, Managing Editor & Design & Creative Direction Communications Senior Writer, Arnaud Ghelfi, l’atelier starno Alex A.G. Shapiro Communications Andrew Cohen Contributing Editor Craig Lancaster Transcript Magazine Fall 2020, Volume 55 Contributing Designer Laurie Frasier COVER PHOTOGRAPHY BY BRITTANY HOSEA-SMALL Sections 3 In Brief Nuggets from the School Community Transition Team One-Credit Wonders Offered to 1Ls A Global View
    [Show full text]
  • 124019NCJRS.Pdf
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. • • A Study of ORGANIZED CRlME BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES and Their • IMPLICATIONS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT • • Prepared for the NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE Washington, D.C. • by • Herbert Edelhertz and Thomas D. Overcast January 1990 • Northwest Policy Studies Center Kirkland, Washington • ~--------- - • • A Study of • ORGANIZED tRIME BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES and Their IMPLICATIONS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT • Prepared for the NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE Washington, D.C. I • by Herbert Edelhertz and Thomas D. Overcast • January 1990 Northwest Policy Studies Center • Kirkland, Washington This study was supported by Grant Number 87-IJ-CX-0053 awarded to the Northwest Policy Studies Center by the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, under the Omnibus Crime Control and • Safe Streets Act of 1986, as amended. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. • • • • • 124019 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent'the official position or policies of the National Institute of • Justice. Permission to reproduce this : 5 I material has been granted by Public DomainLNIJ u. S. Department of .Just; ce 10 the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). • Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS syslem requires permis· sian of the ___ owner.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Brett Tolman, Former U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah Regarding H.R.759, the Recidivism Risk Reduction Act Ho
    Statement of Brett Tolman, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah Regarding H.R.759, the Recidivism Risk Reduction Act House Oversight Committee, July 15, 2015 The federal criminal justice system currently faces unprecedented and significant challenges. The prison population in the U.S. has increased dramatically over the past several decades, putting immense strain on both the human and financial capital of the Department of Justice. It is universally acknowledged that there has been a shift over the past several decades in investigative and prosecutorial practices. Instead of focusing scarce and valuable resources on the highest level of criminal conduct, today’s federal system is too often pursuing the lowest level offenders, who are often over-punished due to over-aggressive guideline calculations and over-reliance on minimum mandatory sentencing laws. The federal system has, unfortunately, been neither thoughtful nor conscientious in its punishment of those it convicts. Tellingly, the U.S. has less than five percent of the world’s population, but houses nearly twenty-five percent of the world’s prisoners. For drug offenses the Department of Justice is expected to use the hammer of mandatory minimum sentences to dismantle drug trafficking. But the reality on the ground is that most prosecutions, despite resulting in significant prison sentences, only net insignificant “mules” or small-time traffickers. Long federal sentences routinely go to the lower-level targets while the “kingpins” and their drug trafficking operations continue to thrive. This problem is not confined to the punishment of drug offenses. In the white collar world, for example, long sentences are too easily the product of manipulating the “dollar-loss figure” guideline calculations—resulting in baffling and unfortunate prosecutions.
    [Show full text]