Why Is The Attorney General Making Claims About PATRIOT Act That Her Own Agency's Report Says Are Not True?

Say That Again

from the total-failure dept

Fri, May 22nd 2015 8:27am — Mike Masnick

We already posted about the new DOJ Inspector General report analyzing the FBI's use of the PATRIOT Act's Section 215 "business records" collection. Among the various things in the unredacted sections of the report is yet another claim (following on many similar statements) that the Section 215 program has never been shown to actually be that useful:

That wasn't all that interesting on its own, given how many times others (including many with the security clearance and access to know) have made the same point. But what's incredibly troubling is that the very same day that this report came out, Attorney General Loretta Lynch was making the rounds claiming the exact opposite.

Meanwhile, today Attorney General Loretta Lynch weighed in on the debate in Congress, claiming the exact opposite. She was quoted by CBS News as saying that if Patriot Act Section 215 expires: “[W]e lose important tools. I think that we lose the ability to intercept these communications, which have proven very important in cases that we have built in the past.” (emphasis mine)

So to sum up: the Justice Department’s own Inspector General said information collected under Section 215 did not lead to "any major case developments,” but the Attorney General said that Section 215 has “proven very important in cases that we have built.” Both statements cannot be true.

And, remember, the Attorney General is the head of the Justice Department. It certainly sounds like she's either woefully uninformed or outright lying. She is new at the job, but not so new that she wouldn't know these basic facts.

And, in some ways it gets even worse. As Patrick Eddington points out, Lynch appears to be directly calling for the continuation of a program that the 2nd Circuit appeals court just declared illegal. Doesn't that raise some fairly important questions, when you have the Attorney General -- the person officially in charge of enforcing our laws insisting that we need to continue an illegal program?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: attorney general, doj, loretta lynch, patriot act, section 215

10 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

David, 22 May 2015 @ 8:54am

No contradiction here.
As with our previous reviews, the agents we interviewed did not identify any major case developments that resulted from use of the records obtained in response to Section 215 orders, but told us that the material produced pursuant to Section 215 orders was valuable in that it was used to support other investigative requests, develop investigative leads, and corroborate other information.

Now they are not saying that the agents said there were no major case developments (and developing an investigative lead most certainly is a major case development as it makes the difference between a case being there or not), but that they did not identify any major cases.

And since they pretty much spell out that those cases were pursued using parallel construction (also known as "evidence laundering"), identifying such cases would likely lead to them being appealed and thrown out of court.

So yes, Lynch is entirely correct that ending Section 215 is going to remove one layer of pretense that the Department of Justice uses for cloaking its illegal operations internally.

Ending Section 215 will not really make a difference regarding what they are telling in court cases: they already use parallel construction here. However, it will make the Department of Justice more likely to be subject to criminal investigations by oversight committees and controlling courts (obviously not by the Department of Justice itself). So they have more of a risk of getting interference with those parts of their operation relying on organized criminality.

Which would be a serious setback for most government branches of the executive these days.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ambrellite, 22 May 2015 @ 8:56am

Lying, or telling a different truth?
Does parallel construction make it possible for both the IG's statement and Lynch's to be true? I.e., the program is ostensibly useless, but secretly (and illegally) being used to prosecute many cases where such evidence would ordinarily be thrown out.

And if this illegal program is so relied upon, how atrophied are the traditional investigatory tools that *aren't* being used?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 May 2015 @ 9:12am

Re: No contradiction here.
"evidence laundering"

Thank you for including this term which needs to be spread further in these discussions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 22 May 2015 @ 9:25am

Re: Lying, or telling a different truth?
"Does parallel construction make it possible for both the IG's statement and Lynch's to be true"

Parallel construction is itself lying, only in court and under oath.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 22 May 2015 @ 9:29am

Doesn't that raise some fairly important questions, when you have the Attorney General -- the person officially in charge of enforcing our laws insisting that we need to continue an illegal program?

It does but when law enforcement thinks it's in charge of making the laws it's a bit worse then just raising some important questions...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yes, I know I'm commenting anonymously, 22 May 2015 @ 11:37am

Sad but true: Mass-surveillance is extremely usefull... to give politicians perceived insulation from blame.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 22 May 2015 @ 1:50pm

Why Is The Attorney General Making Claims About PATRIOT Act That Her Own Agency's Report Says Are Not True?
Because she knows no-one has the guts or courage to call her on it. When you know you can say anything, even blatantly wrong things, and no-one will point out that you're either lying or ill-informed, why not lie to your heart's content?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tqk (profile), 22 May 2015 @ 3:09pm

Which war are they fighting? The same one?
the Justice Department’s own Inspector General said information collected under Section 215 did not lead to "any major case developments,” but the Attorney General said that Section 215 has “proven very important in cases that we have built.” Both statements cannot be true.

If the IG's definition of "major case developments" is the same as ours (ie. stopping a terrorist attack before it happens), and the AG believes that putting a few drug dealers in jail are "very important cases", there's your truth. Following the money leads to the Drug War, not to Islamic Extremism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Padpaw (profile), 22 May 2015 @ 6:01pm

What a shock another politician in a position of power over the masses that has spit on their oath and is for sale to the highest bidder
[ link to this | view in thread ]
toyotabedzrock (profile), 25 May 2015 @ 4:58pm

She is new so she more than likely has not had the time to review it and it relying on previous assertions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]