DOCSLIB.ORG

Alderson Reporting Company

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

HJU128000 PAGE 1 1 ALDERSON COURT REPORTING 2 CHRISTINE ALLEN 3 HJU128000 4 MARKUP OF COMMITTEE REPORT FOR RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT 5 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FIND WILLIAM P. BARR, ATTORNEY 6 GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, IN CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS 7 FOR REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH A SUBPOENA DULY ISSUED BY THE 8 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 9 Wednesday, May 8, 2019 10 House of Representatives 11 Committee on the Judiciary 12 Washington, D.C. 13 The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:11 a.m., in 14 Room 2141, Rayburn Office Building, Hon. Jerrold Nadler 15 [chairman of the committee] presiding. 16 Present: Representatives Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, 17 Cohen, Johnson of Georgia, Deutch, Bass, Richmond, Jeffries, 18 Cicilline, Swalwell, Lieu, Raskin, Jayapal, Demings, Correa, 19 Scanlon, Garcia, Neguse, McBath, Stanton, Dean, Murcarsel- 20 Powell, Escobar, Collins, Sensenbrenner, Chabot, Gohmert, HJU128000 PAGE 2 21 Jordan, Buck, Ratcliffe, Roby, Gaetz, Johnson of Louisiana, 22 Biggs, McClintock, Lesko, Reschenthaler, Cline, Armstrong, 23 and Steube. 24 Staff present: Aaron Hiller, Deputy Chief Counsel; Arya 25 Hariharan, Oversight Counsel; David Greengrass, Senior 26 Counsel; John Doty, Senior Advisor; Lisette Morton, Director 27 of Policy, Planning, and Member Services; Madeline Strasser, 28 Chief Clerk; Moh Sharma, Member Services and Outreach 29 Advisor; Susan Jensen, Parliamentarian/Senior Counsel; Sophie 30 Brill, Counsel, Constitution Subcommittee; Will Emmons, 31 Professional Staff Member, Constitution Subcommittee; Brendan 32 Belair, Minority Chief of Staff; Robert Parmiter, Minority 33 Deputy Chief of Staff; Jon Ferro, Minority Parliamentarian; 34 Carlton David, Minority Chief Oversight Counsel; Ashley 35 Callen, Chief Oversight Counsel; Ryan Breitenbach, Minority 36 Chief Counsel, National Security; Erica Barker, Minority 37 Chief Legislative Clerk; and Andrea Woodard, Minority 38 Professional Staff Member. 39 HJU128000 PAGE 3 40 Chairman Nadler. The Judiciary Committee will please 41 come to order, a quorum being present. Without objection, 42 the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. 43 Pursuant to Committee Rule II and House Rule XI, Clause 44 2, the chair may postpone further proceedings today on the 45 question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an 46 amendment for which a recorded vote for the yeas or nays are 47 ordered. 48 Pursuant to notice, I now call up the Committee Report 49 for a Resolution Recommending that the House of 50 Representatives Find William Barr, Attorney General, U.S. 51 Department of Justice, in Contempt for Refusal to Comply with 52 a Subpoena Duly Issued by the Committee on the Judiciary 53 Committee, for purposes of markup, and move that the 54 committee report it favorably to the House. 55 The clerk -- 56 Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I demand the question 57 of consideration. 58 Chairman Nadler. Before we read the bill? 59 Mr. Sensenbrenner. I believe this is when the motion 60 lies. 61 Chairman Nadler. The question of consideration is not 62 debatable. The question is shall the committee consider the 63 committee report. 64 All those in favor, say aye. HJU128000 PAGE 4 65 Opposed? 66 The ayes have it. 67 Mr. Sensenbrenner. Roll call, please. 68 Chairman Nadler. A roll call is requested. The clerk 69 will call the roll. 70 Ms. Strasser. Mr. Nadler? 71 Chairman Nadler. Aye. 72 Ms. Strasser. Mr. Nadler votes aye. 73 Ms. Lofgren? 74 Ms. Lofgren. Aye. 75 Ms. Strasser. Ms. Lofgren votes aye. 76 Ms. Jackson Lee? 77 Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye. 78 Ms. Strasser. Ms. Jackson Lee votes aye. 79 Mr. Cohen? 80 Mr. Cohen. Aye. 81 Ms. Strasser. Mr. Cohen votes aye. 82 Mr. Johnson of Georgia? 83 Mr. Deutch? 84 Mr. Deutch. Aye. 85 Ms. Strasser. Mr. Deutch votes aye. 86 Ms. Bass? 87 Ms. Bass. Aye. 88 Ms. Strasser. Ms. Bass votes aye. 89 Mr. Richmond? HJU128000 PAGE 5 90 Mr. Richmond. Yes. 91 Ms. Strasser. Mr. Richmond votes yes. 92 Mr. Jeffries? 93 Mr. Cicilline? 94 Mr. Cicilline. Aye. 95 Ms. Strasser. Mr. Cicilline votes aye. 96 Mr. Swalwell? 97 Mr. Lieu? 98 Mr. Lieu. Aye. 99 Ms. Strasser. Mr. Lieu votes aye. 100 Mr. Raskin? 101 Mr. Raskin. Aye. 102 Ms. Strasser. Mr. Raskin votes aye. 103 Ms. Jayapal? 104 Ms. Jayapal. Aye. 105 Ms. Strasser. Ms. Jayapal votes aye. 106 Mrs. Demings? 107 Mrs. Demings. Aye. 108 Ms. Strasser. Mrs. Demings votes aye. 109 Mr. Correa? 110 Mr. Correa. Aye. 111 Ms. Strasser. Mr. Correa votes aye. 112 Ms. Scanlon? 113 Ms. Scanlon. Aye. 114 Ms. Strasser. Ms. Scanlon votes aye. HJU128000 PAGE 6 115 Ms. Garcia? 116 Ms. Garcia. Aye. 117 Ms. Strasser. Ms. Garcia votes aye. 118 Mr. Neguse? 119 Mr. Neguse. Aye. 120 Ms. Strasser. Mr. Neguse votes aye. 121 Mrs. McBath? 122 Mrs. McBath. Aye. 123 Ms. Strasser. Mrs. McBath votes aye. 124 Mr. Stanton? 125 Mr. Stanton. Aye. 126 Ms. Strasser. Mr. Stanton votes aye. 127 Ms. Dean? 128 Ms. Dean. Aye. 129 Ms. Strasser. Ms. Dean votes aye. 130 Ms. Mucarsel-Powell? 131 Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Aye. 132 Ms. Strasser. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell votes aye. 133 Ms. Escobar? 134 Ms. Escobar. Aye. 135 Ms. Strasser. Ms. Escobar votes aye. 136 Mr. Collins? 137 Mr. Collins. No. 138 Ms. Strasser. Mr. Collins votes no. 139 Mr. Sensenbrenner? HJU128000 PAGE 7 140 Mr. Sensenbrenner. No. 141 Ms. Strasser. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no. 142 Mr. Chabot? 143 Mr. Gohmert? 144 Mr. Gohmert. No. 145 Ms. Strasser. Mr. Gohmert votes no. 146 Mr. Jordan? 147 Mr. Jordan. No. 148 Ms. Strasser. Mr. Jordan votes no. 149 Mr. Buck? 150 Mr. Ratcliffe? 151 Mr. Ratcliffe. No. 152 Ms. Strasser. Mr. Ratcliffe votes no. 153 Mrs. Roby? 154 Mr. Gaetz? 155 Mr. Johnson of Louisiana? 156 Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. No. 157 Ms. Strasser. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana votes no. 158 Mr. Biggs? 159 Mr. Biggs. No. 160 Ms. Strasser. Mr. Biggs votes no. 161 Mr. McClintock? 162 Mrs. Lesko? 163 Mrs. Lesko. No. 164 Ms. Strasser. Mrs. Lesko votes no. HJU128000 PAGE 8 165 Mr. Reschenthaler? 166 Mr. Reschenthaler. No. 167 Ms. Strasser. Mr. Reschenthaler votes no. 168 Mr. Cline? 169 Mr. Cline. No. 170 Ms. Strasser. Mr. Cline votes no. 171 Mr. Armstrong? 172 Mr. Armstrong. No. 173 Ms. Strasser. Mr. Armstrong votes no. 174 Mr. Steube? 175 Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded? 176 Ms. Strasser. Mr. Gaetz, you are not recorded. 177 Mr. Gaetz. No. 178 Ms. Strasser. Mr. Gaetz votes no. 179 Chairman Nadler. The gentleman from Georgia? 180 Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Yes. 181 Ms. Strasser. Mr. Johnson of Georgia votes yes. 182 Chairman Nadler. The gentlelady from Florida? 183 Voice. She's already voted. 184 Chairman Nadler. Oh. Is there any member of the 185 committee who wishes to vote who hasn't voted? 186 [No response.] 187 Chairman Nadler. The clerk will report. 188 Ms. Strasser. Mr. Chairman, there are 22 ayes and 12 189 noes. HJU128000 PAGE 9 190 Chairman Nadler. The motion for consideration is 191 adopted. 192 The clerk will report the committee report. 193 Ms. Strasser. Resolution recommending that the House of 194 Representatives find William P. Barr, Attorney General, U.S. 195 Department of Justice, in contempt of Congress for refusal to 196 comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Committee on the 197 Judiciary. 198 Chairman Nadler. Without objection, the committee 199 report is considered as read and open for amendment at any 200 point. 201 [The committee report follows:] 202 HJU128000 PAGE 10 203 Chairman Nadler. I will begin by recognizing myself for 204 an opening statement. 205 Today we consider a report recommending that the House 206 of Representatives hold Attorney General William Barr in 207 contempt of Congress for defying a valid subpoena issued by 208 this committee. This is not a step we take lightly. It is 209 the culmination of nearly 3 months of requests, discussions, 210 and negotiations with the Department of Justice for the 211 complete, unredacted report by Special Counsel Mueller into 212 Russian interference in the 2016 election along with the 213 underlying evidence. 214 I appreciate the fact that the Department responded to 215 the offer we made to them last week and met with us yesterday 216 in a last-minute effort to reach an accommodation. We heard 217 the Department out. We responded to them in good faith. And 218 after all was said and done, we unfortunately were still 219 unable to reach agreement, and we proceeded with our markup 220 today. As I have said before, we remain ready and willing to 221 consider any reasonable offer made by the Department even 222 after today's vote, but if a letter I received late last 223 night from the Department is any indication, I am concerned 224 that the Department is heading in the wrong direction. 225 In response to our latest good-faith offer, the 226 Department abruptly announced that if we move forward today, 227 it would ask President Trump to invoke what it refers to as HJU128000 PAGE 11 228 the protective assertion of executive privilege on all of the 229 materials subject to our subpoena. Just minutes ago, it took 230 that dramatic step. Besides misapplying the doctrine of 231 executive privilege since the White House waived these 232 privileges long ago, and the Department seemed open to 233 sharing these materials with us just yesterday, this decision 234 represents a clear escalation in the Trump Administration's 235 blanket defiance of Congress' constitutionally-mandated 236 duties. 237 I hope that the Department will think better of this 238 last-minute outburst and return to negotiations. As a co- 239 equal branch of government, we must have access to the 240 materials that we need to fulfill our constitutional 241 responsibilities in a manner consistent with past precedent.
Recommended publications
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • (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.
  • Barr Will Not Be Independent of President Trump Or

    Barr Will Not Be Independent of President Trump Or

    Attorney General Nominee William barr President Trump announced that he intends to nominate William Barr to be attorney general. Barr served as attorney general under President George H.W. Bush from 1991-1993. Since then, he has been a telecommunications executive and board member, as well as in private legal practice. BARR WILL NOT BE INDEPENDENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP OR RESTRAIN Trump’s ATTACKS ON THE RULE OF LAW Threat TO THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION Barr authored a controversial memo attacking part of the Mueller investigation. In June 2018, Barr sent the Department of Justice a lengthy memo arguing that Mueller shouldn't be able to investigate Trump for obstruction of justice. The memo, which Barr reportedly shared with the White House as well, raises serious concerns that Barr thinks Trump should be above the law. Barr has already been asked to defend President Trump in the Mueller investigation. President Trump repeatedly criticized Attorney General Jeff Sessions for failing to rein in Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and clearly a priority for the president is appointing an individual to lead the Justice Department who will protect him from investigations. President Trump has reportedly asked Barr in the past whether he would serve as Trump’s personal defense attorney and has inquired whether Barr, like Sessions, would recuse himself from the Mueller investigation. Barr is already on record minimizing the seriousness of allegations surrounding Trump and Russia. In reference to a supposed Clinton uranium scandal that gained traction in right-wing conspiracy circles, it was reported that “Mr. Barr said he sees more basis for investigating the uranium deal than any supposed collusion between Mr.
  • The Lawlessness of William Barr, America's New Top Law

    The Lawlessness of William Barr, America's New Top Law

    The Lawlessness of William Barr, America’s New Top Law Enforcement Official By Alexander Rubinstein and Cale Holmes Region: USA Global Research, February 19, 2019 Theme: History MintPress News 15 February 2019 The relatively small amount of scrutiny William Barr fell under from Congress and Beltway thought leaders speaks to a conformity of their ideologies. But to understand what America’s new top law enforcement official really signifies as a veteran swamp creature, it is necessary to revisit Cold War history. *** Congress’ confirmation ofWilliam Barr as Attorney General for the United States on Thursday has come and gone with comparatively little commotion compared to that attending his predecessor, Jeff Sessions, or Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Most media attention fixated on the potential for Barr to undermine the work of his former colleague and close collaborator, Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The relatively small amount of scrutiny Barr fell under from Congress and Beltway thought leaders speaks to a conformity of their ideologies. But to understand what America’s new top law enforcement official really signifies as a veteran swamp creature, it is necessary to revisit Cold War history. Despite being lauded by doves in the later stages of the Vietnam War, Robert Kennedy (RFK) remained unapologetic about his involvement in the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba during the Kennedy administration. In a statement four days after the invasion, then- Attorney General RFK seemingly denied U.S. involvement in the paramilitary assault on Playa Giron. As the world knew full well that it was the U.S. behind the incursion, his brother, President John F.
  • January 14, 2019 the Honorable Lindsey Graham Chair Senate

    January 14, 2019 the Honorable Lindsey Graham Chair Senate

    WASHINGTON DC OFFICE 1776 K Street, NW Suite 852 Washington DC 20006 January 14, 2019 The Honorable Lindsey Graham Chair Senate Committee on the Judiciary 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Dianne Feinstein Ranking Member Senate Committee on the Judiciary 152 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 RE: Opposition to Confirmation of William Barr for Attorney General Dear Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Feinstein, We write to oppose the nomination of William Barr to serve as Attorney General of the United States. Mr. Barr has an established track record of actively opposing the application of civil rights to all. He has also enthusiastically endorsed actions taken by the Sessions Justice Department, indicating that he would continue on that harmful trajectory if confirmed. While the bases for opposing Mr. Barr’s confirmation are myriad, we focus here on the following. Mr. Barr Opposes LGBT Equality Mr. Barr has asserted that LGBT people are not worthy of being treated as equal to others. While serving as Attorney General in the early 1990s, Mr. Barr gave a speech warning against laws that “put on the equal plane, conduct that was previously considered immoral.” 1 Mr. Barr then criticized a nondiscrimination statute in the District of Columbia that required Georgetown University to treat an LGBT student group (whom Barr described as “homosexual activist[s]”) as it did other student groups, arguing that, “this kind of law dissolve[s] any kind of moral consensus in society.”2 Mr. Barr also expressed his disapproval of laws that prohibit landlords from 1 William Barr Senate Questionnaire Attachment 12(d), p.434, Catholic League for Religious and Civil Right Dinner (Oct.
  • In Re IMPEACHMENT of PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

    In Re IMPEACHMENT of PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

    IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Sitting as a Court of Impeachment In re IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP United States House of Representatives Jamie Raskin Diana DeGette David Cicilline Joaquin Castro Eric Swalwell Ted Lieu Stacey Plaskett Madeleine Dean Joe Neguse U.S. House of Representatives Managers TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................................... 5 A. President Trump Refuses to Accept the Results of the 2020 Election ................................ 5 B. President Trump Encourages His Followers to Come to Washington on January 6, 2021 and “Fight” to Overturn the Election Results ............................................................. 12 C. Vice President Pence Refuses to Overturn the Election Results ....................................... 18 D. President Trump Incites Insurrectionists to Attack the Capitol ........................................ 20 E. Insurrectionists Incited by President Trump Attack the Capitol ....................................... 22 F. President Trump’s Dereliction of Duty During the Attack ................................................ 29 G. The House Approves An Article of Impeachment with Bipartisan Support
  • Obscure but Powerful: Shaping U.S. Immigration Policy Through Attorney General Referral and Review

    Obscure but Powerful: Shaping U.S. Immigration Policy Through Attorney General Referral and Review

    RETHINKING U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY INITIATIVE Obscure but Powerful Shaping U.S. Immigration Policy through Attorney General Referral and Review By Sarah Pierce U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY PROGRAM Obscure but Powerful Shaping U.S. Immigration Policy through Attorney General Referral and Review By Sarah Pierce Migration Policy Institute January 2021 Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 2 2 History of the Attorney General’s Referral and Review Power ........................ 3 A. The Homeland Security Act and Its Effects .................................................................................................6 B. Referral and Review as an Administrative Tool .........................................................................................9 3 The Trump Administration’s Use of Self-Referral ...................................................... 12 A. Restricting Access to Asylum ............................................................................................................................13 B. Eliminating Immigration Judge Discretion ..............................................................................................17 4 The Future of Self-Referral .........................................................................................................
  • Trump's New Face of Power in America

    Trump's New Face of Power in America

    Trump’s New Face of Power in America (updated and revised June 2021) Bob Hanke1 York University, Toronto, Canada Abstract: This article proposes that the advent of Trumpism was an historical moment of danger that compels us to analyze the micropolitics of the present. In the first part, I describe the constellation that gave rise to Trumpism. In the second part, I recall Goffman’s concept of face-work and discuss how it remains relevant for describing Trump’s aggressive face-work. In the third part, I take Deleuze and Guattari’s concept of faciality as a point of departure for understanding micro- fascism. As an abstract machine, Trump’s faciality engendered and diffused fascisizing micropolitics around a messenger/disrupter in chief. It worked in connection with a landscape and relative to a collective assemblage of enunciation that extracted a territory of perception and affect. In the micropolitics of the present, the defining feature of Trumpism was how the corrupt abuse of power and the counterforces limiting his potency collided on an ominous, convulsive political reality TV show that threatened US democracy. Keywords: Trumpism, face-work, faciality, assemblage, micropolitics, impeachment, coronavirus pandemic We are all sufferers from history, but the paranoid is a double sufferer, since he is afflicted not only by the real world, with the rest of us, but by his fantasies as well. – Richard Hofstadter (1964) When a man unprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents,
  • An Interdisciplinary Journal

    An Interdisciplinary Journal

    FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITA LISM FAST CAPITALISMFast Capitalism FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM ISSNFAST XXX-XXXX CAPITALISM FAST Volume 1 • Issue 1 • 2005 CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITA LISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITA LISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITA LISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITA LISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITA LISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM FAST CAPITALISM
  • What You Should Know About the Civil Rights Record of William Barr

    What You Should Know About the Civil Rights Record of William Barr

    WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THE CIVIL RIGHTS RECORD OF WILLIAM BARR A BRIEF BY NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. What You Should Know about the Civil Rights Record of William Barr On December 7, 2018, President Trump announced William P. Barr as his nominee for Attorney General of the United States, following the forced resignation of Jefferson (“Jeff”) Beauregard Sessions III. As head of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the nation’s top law enforcement official, the position of Attorney General is one of unparalleled power within the Executive Branch and has profound implications for civil rights. The Attorney General must work to advance the full mission of DOJ which includes working to “ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice to all Americans,” including by monitoring and enforcing Americans’ constitutional and civil rights. It is therefore essential that any nominee’s record on civil rights is thoroughly and closely scrutinized before confirmation to this position of extraordinary public trust and firmly opposed if that record indicates a lack of commitment to the constitutional principles of fairness, equality, and the rule of law. The importance of this inquiry is punctuated by the context in which it arises. The nomination of Mr. Barr must be viewed in the context of this unique and critical moment in our nation’s history, informing how one should evaluate Mr. Barr’s record and his fitness for office. This President is laboring under the cloud of multiple federal investigations into potential felonious activity involving collusion with a foreign power in the very election process that brought him to office and enabled the President to make this nomination.