Attorney General Jeff Sessions: Hurricane Harvey Is Proof We Need To Militarize Our Police Forces

from the say-what-now? dept

Earlier this week, we wrote about Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions bringing back the Defense Department's 1033 program, which helped militarize local police forces with surplus military equipment. We've been covering all sorts of problems with the 1033 program over the years, and people like Radley Balko have written entire books on the problem. And the previous ban on the 1033 only put a fairly narrow limit on the practice of militarizing police -- but now even those modest limits are gone.

What's truly incredible, however, is the complete nonsense being used to justify this. Attorney General Jeff Sessions gave a speech about this on Monday, in which he trotted out his standard misleading and out-of-context stats, falsely claiming that there's some massive new crimewave across the country, when there's really just been a tiny bump after decades of decline in crime rates (the use of percentages by Sessions shows the he likely knows the absolute numbers are so meaningless that he has to mislead with percentages working off a small base).

But, even with the usual misleading claims about violence and violence directed towards police, I still never expected him to... point to Houston and the impact of Hurricane Harvey as a reason for increased police militarization. But that's exactly what he did:

Those restrictions went too far. We will not put superficial concerns above public safety. All you need to do is turn on a tv right now to see that for Houstonians this isn’t about appearances, its about getting the job done and getting everyone to safety.

Wait. Law enforcement in Houston needs surplus military equipment to rescue people? Last I've seen it's been tons of good hearted people using boats of all kinds going around and rescuing people. I don't see much need for military equipment.

Once again, this looks like law enforcement using "any means necessary" to justify getting their military surplus toys, despite tremendous evidence of how this process is abused, how it harms community relations and how it leads to civil rights of the public being violated. To point to the disaster in Houston as a reason for restarting the program is not just frivolous, it's dangerous.

Filed Under: 1033, doj, hurricane harvey, jeff sessions, police, police militarization

Trump Rolls Back Ban On Transfer Of Military Equipment To Law Enforcement Agencies

from the police-statesmanship dept

As part of his ongoing effort to reverse everything President Obama ever did, President Trump will be rolling back the previous administration's 1033 program ban. The program allowed local law enforcement agencies to help themselves to Defense Department equipment -- often paid for with federal grants -- as long as they said the magic words (terrorism/drugs) on the application.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who led the campaign for the program's reinstatement, outlined the President Trump's new executive order Monday in an address at the annual meeting of the Fraternal Order of Police, the nation's largest police union.

The administration's action, first disclosed by USA TODAY, would restore "the full scope of a longstanding program for recycling surplus, lifesaving gear from the Department of Defense, along with restoring the full scope of grants used to purchase this type of equipment from other sources,'' according to a administration summary of the new program recently circulated to some law enforcement groups.

"Assets that would otherwise be scrapped can be re-purposed to help state, local and tribal law enforcement better protect public safety and reduce crime."

Attorney General Sessions loves rolling things back. This will give police departments access to mine-resistant vehicles, grenade launchers, and firearms, which should "assist" them in fighting the Drug War 1980s-style and/or pitching in with ICE's efforts to pitch migrants back over the wall Trump can't seem to get built.

This is prime law-and-order stuff. Trump has made it clear law enforcement is on the right side of history. Everyone who doubts or criticizes cops is simply wrong. A ban put in place as a reaction to militarized police responses is being reversed because no one up top cares how police are perceived. AG Sessions has already killed off federal civil rights investigations of local law enforcement agencies. Now, police will find it easier than ever to dude up as war-fighters, rather than easily-identifiable public servants.

As Radley Balko pointed out on Twitter, Obama's rollback didn't put a huge dent in military gear acquisitions. But it did attempt to head off further development of law enforcement's "us vs. them" mentality by making it a bit more difficult to look and act like an occupying force, rather than law enforcement agencies. Balko notes plenty of gear can still be obtained from other sources, like the DHS, state agencies, and donations. But the ultimate point of the ban was to reduce the gap between public servants and the people they serve -- something explicitly noted by Obama's law enforcement guidance task force.

The Task Force on 21st Century Policing, chaired by former Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey and Laurie Robinson, a former assistant attorney general, called on law enforcement officials to "minimize the appearance of a military operation'' when policing mass demonstrations.

"Avoid using provocative tactics and equipment that undermine civilian trust," the task force urged.

The previously-banned equipment also included tracked armored vehicles, bayonets and grenade launchers.

Trump's ban reversal sends the opposite message. Combined with his public statements, proclamations, and executive orders, the future of policing will make cities and towns feel like occupied territory and turn citizens into civilians.

Filed Under: 1033, doj, donald trump, jeff sessions, militarized police, military surplus, police

Deputy Attorney General Walks Back Attorney General's Threat To Journalists

from the house-divided-against-itself--FOUR-MORE-YEARS!-FOUR-MORE-YEARS! dept

Because this administration rarely seems to agree with itself, another recent pronouncement is being rolled back by someone within the same agency that made statements to the opposite effect only days earlier. Let me explain:

On Friday, Jeff Sessions held a press briefing on national security leaks, stating the DOJ was aggressively pursuing several leak investigations. That these investigations would most likely discourage actual whistleblowers was assumed, but not stated. Sessions didn't directly state he was rolling back previous DOJ policy to start targeting journalists who published leaked documents, but he did say this:

I have listened to career investigators and prosecutors about how to most successfully investigate and prosecute these matters. At their suggestion, one of the things we are doing is reviewing policies affecting media subpoenas. We respect the important role that the press plays and will give them respect, but it is not unlimited. They cannot place lives at risk with impunity. We must balance their role with protecting our national security and the lives of those who serve in our intelligence community, the armed forces, and all law abiding Americans.

This appeared to indicate the DOJ was taking the gloves off and would be going after journalists who refused to reveal their sources. Sessions refused to answer a direct question about the issue before ending the press conference, echoing his non-answer on the same subject during his confirmation hearing.

Two days later, the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, has walked back some of what was implied during Friday's press briefing.

Speaking to Fox News Sunday, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein emphasized that the department’s renewed effort to prosecute leaks of classified information was not aimed at the news media.

“We’re after the leakers, not the journalists,” he said. “We don’t prosecute journalists for doing their jobs.“

It's only a partial rollback. Rosenstein wouldn't 100% rule out journalists being charged with crimes if the publication of documents was somehow criminal. (Not sure how often that would actually be the case, but the DOJ has a pretty vivid imagination sometimes.) But it sounds like the DOJ isn't going to start pushing for contempt charges if journalists refuse to turn over info when subpoenaed.

Of course, this could all change again in the next few days. The Trump Administration has been nothing if not schizophrenic, with officials offering contradictory statements and the president's own tweets/statements routinely refuted by department heads, cabinet members, and the government's lawyers.

Filed Under: chilling effects, doj, first amendment, free speech, freedom of the press, intimidation, jeff sessions, rod rosenstein, subpoenas

Jeff Sessions Suggests He's Steering The DOJ Towards Prosecuting More Journalists

from the publish-and-die dept

Jeff Sessions and the DOJ are back to threatening leakers again. It seems counterproductive, considering each new threat of leak investigations does little to stem the steady flow of leaks. But the new DOJ boss seems ready to go further than his predecessors.

Having already expressed an interest in taking care of Obama's unfinished business by going after Wikileaks, Sessions now appears to be headed towards threatening journalism and the First Amendment itself. This would be a new direction for the Justice Department. A 2013 report by the DOJ stated it was unwilling to consider the punishment of journalists during leak investigations, except as a last resort.

As an initial matter, it bears emphasis that it has been and remains the Department's policy that members of the news media will not be subject to prosecution based solely on newsgathering activities. Furthermore, in light of the importance of the constitutionally protected newsgathering process, the Department views the use of tools to seek evidence from or involving the news media as an extraordinary measure.

Journalists have been subpoenaed before in leak investigations, but the DOJ has generally been unwilling to jail journalists for refusing to hand over information on their sources. Jeff Sessions, however, seems less concerned about using the weight of the law against members of the press.

In his written remarks before a press briefing on national security leaks, Sessions said this:

I have listened to career investigators and prosecutors about how to most successfully investigate and prosecute these matters. At their suggestion, one of the things we are doing is reviewing policies affecting media subpoenas. We respect the important role that the press plays and will give them respect, but it is not unlimited. They cannot place lives at risk with impunity. We must balance their role with protecting our national security and the lives of those who serve in our intelligence community, the armed forces, and all law abiding Americans.

This strongly suggests the 2013 guidelines on "new media" will be rewritten by Sessions' DOJ to justify increased prosecutions of journalists. This is a dangerous step forward, especially in an era where leaks seem to be coming faster than journalists can publish them. Throwing a few journalists in jail for contempt creates a severe chilling effect. Even the enhanced threat of prosecution may be enough to discourage journalists from publishing leaked docs or working with government sources.

Sessions was asked directly if this administration would prosecute journalists. He refused to answer the question before ending the briefing. This would be the second time Sessions has dodged this question -- the first being Sen. Klobluchar's question along the same lines during his confirmation hearing. What better way to send a chilling message to journalists then telling them their freedom might be at stake as they attend a press briefing.

Filed Under: chilling effects, doj, first amendment, free speech, jeff sessions, journalism, sources, subpoenas

Former DOJ Prosecutor Steps Up To Defend DOJ's New Asset Forfeiture Rules

from the ask-not-what-your-country-can-do-for-you-etc. dept

Because someone had to, a former DOJ prosecutor has stepped up to defend the grand reopening of federal civil asset forfeiture abuse. George J. Terwilliger III has been given space at the Wall Street Journal to tell everyone why they're wrong about civil forfeiture. (Non-paywalled version here.)

As part of the new president's "law and order" focus, Attorney General Jeff Sessions opened up the federal outlet for forfeiture, allowing state and local law enforcement agencies to route around local restrictions by asking for federal "adoption" of their forfeitures. This reversed the policy put in place by Sessions' predecessor, which limited adoptions and forced local agencies to adhere to local rules.

Terwilliger, who has cut more than one federal forfeiture check, claims there's nothing wrong with civil asset forfeiture. And if there is, the solution isn't less of it.

Last week Attorney General Jeff Sessions restarted the longstanding practice, suspended by the Obama administration in 2015, of allowing state authorities to use federal forfeiture procedures. Mr. Sessions also introduced important safeguards to protect innocent people.

Still, critics challenged the practice’s reinstatement, citing instances when police wrongly took property from people who turned out to be innocent. The correct response to such concerns, however, isn’t to end asset forfeiture but to fix it.

Terwilliger offers no fixes. Instead, he heads down the Forfeiture Trail of Tears, reminding readers that drug dealers are bad and the things they do are bad.

Every day brings news of American families devastated by violence or drug use. Overdoses are a common occurrence. These tragedies are the work of criminal gangs that flood the streets with drugs and turn urban cores into combat zones. Such gangs exist for one simple reason: to make money.

No one arguing against civil asset forfeiture disputes these facts. All people are asking for is the government to secure a conviction before making off with someone's property. Terwilliger complains it's too difficult to tie cash and property to drug kingpins. Again, no one is saying this isn't difficult. But grabbing money, cars, houses, etc. from people without convicting them doesn't have more of an effect on them than taking their stuff and locking up their employees.

Whatever happened to using convictions as leverage? You know, encouraging someone to hand over info on higher-ups to secure a better plea deal? Apparently, this is no longer a significant part of the Drug War process. Instead, cops are just taking anything that isn't nailed down and telling themselves they're helping bring down kingpins, rather than just taking stuff because the law says they can.

Terwilliger -- still coasting right past the "fixing it" issue he brought up at the beginning of his op-ed -- claims the new rules are even more protective than the previous rules. The new rules force the government to move faster when filing for forfeiture, which will prevent agencies from sitting on someone else's property for months before giving them a chance to contest it. He also notes the DOJ will (theoretically) be less likely to "adopt" seizures under $10,000. But then he acts as though local agencies and the feds aren't all playing on the same team:

Scrutiny of these types of seizures by Justice Department lawyers will be ratcheted up to prevent and catch any overuse or abuse.

This seems unlikely. And the new rules already allow abuse by giving local agencies a way to skirt local forfeiture restrictions. The new rules also make future abuse more likely by encouraging local agencies to move ahead with forfeitures they normally wouldn't see a cent of, on the off-chance the DOJ will pick it up and cut them a check later.

Terwilliger also adds this fact-free assessment of civil asset forfeiture.

Police generally are careful and conscientious, including with asset forfeiture, which is why wrongful seizures are the exception. Smart law-enforcement leaders also know that if the practice is abused and innocent people are hurt, they could lose access to this valuable tool.

First, a low number of seizure challenges should not be viewed as a general indicator of the "rightfulness" of the majority of seizures. Challenging forfeitures is expensive and time-consuming. In many cases, the amount of money needed to challenge a forfeiture outweighs the value of the property seized. This is why a large majority of seizures nationwide weigh in at less than $1,000.

Second, there is no indication that law enforcement agencies/officials have done anything to curb forfeiture abuse. Not internally. There have been legislative reform efforts put in place in a number of states, but no one has taken this "valuable tool" away from law enforcement, no matter how much abuse has taken place. Finally, this directive makes forfeiture reform legislation mostly null and void, which means whatever was taken away by legislators as a result of law enforcement abuse, has been mostly reinstated by the DOJ's new rules. So, no law enforcement agency actually needs to worry about abusing themselves into a forfeiture-less future.

It's a bad op-ed supporting a terrible process -- a well-meaning program that's been abused past the point of recognition by law enforcement agencies. The nation as a whole is still 0-1 in national drug wars. Civil forfeiture hasn't changed that. All it's done is give the government more ways to take property from citizens.

Filed Under: asset forfeiture, civil asset forfeiture, doj, george terwilliger, jeff sessions, legalized theft

DOJ Forfeiture Directive Gives Local Law Enforcement A Chance To Dodge State Reform Efforts

from the Sessions-taking-it-back-to-the-old-school-cause-he's-an-old-fool dept

As threatened during comments to an association of district attorneys, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is bringing back asset forfeiture. Specifically, Sessions is loosening the restrictions placed on federal adoption of local seizures by Eric Holder during the last years of the Obama presidency. Holder's directive prevented local agencies from routing cash or vehicle seizures through the feds to dodge local rules. That's all over now. An order [PDF] and directive [PDF] issued by the DOJ are welcoming local law enforcement agencies to once again skirt restrictive state forfeiture laws by asking the DOJ to "adopt" their seizures.

On July 19, 2017, the Attorney General issued an Order allowing Department of Justice components and agencies to forfeit assets seized by state or local law enforcement (referred to in the order as "federal adoptions"). Under the Attorney General's Order, federal adoption of all types of assets seized lawfully by state or local law enforcement under their respective state laws is authorized whenever the conduct giving rise to the seizure violates federal law.

"Conduct giving rise to the seizure" almost makes it sound as though the federal government is limiting this to criminal asset forfeiture, which comes as the result of a conviction. Nothing could be further from the truth. In practical terms, this allows cops to say they smell the odor of drugs (or ask their dog's opinion) before hauling away an uncharged citizen's personal effects -- mainly cash, since it's easy to carry and difficult to prove its legal origin.

Multiple states have passed legislation curbing civil asset forfeiture. Fourteen states now require convictions before assets can be forfeited. This will no longer be the case. The DOJ is giving local agencies a way to avoid these restrictions by stating anything considered a federal crime (like drug trafficking) can be used as an escape hatch to ensure these agencies keep at least part of the property they've taken.

Sessions is promising this won't be abused. Given Sessions' comments on civil forfeiture, it's hard to imagine a case where he'd consider a seizure abusive, but there is a limited safeguard built into the new directive.

Adoptions of cash in amounts equal to or less than $10,000 may require additional safeguards. Those adoptions will be permissible where the seizure was conducted: (1) pursuant to a state warrant, (2) incident to arrest for an offense relevant to the forfeiture, (3) at the same time as a seizure of contraband relevant to the forfeiture, or (4) where the owner or person from whom the property is seized makes admissions regarding the criminally derived nature of the property. If a federal agency seeks to adopt cash equal to or less than $10,000 and none of these safeguards is present, then the agency may proceed with the adoption only if the U.S. Attorney's Office first concurs.

I wouldn't read too much into this provision. For starters, it includes the word "may" in the first sentence, which means the DOJ will be able to waive these restrictions whenever it feels like it. Seizures can still be effected "incident to an arrest," which further undermines the conviction requirements put in place by fourteen states.

Forfeitures under $10,000 need more protection, not another outlet for abuse disguised as a "safeguard." Most cash seizures are under $10,000. Forfeiture reform laws tend to target those, as they're most often abused. AG Sessions is leaving it up to US Attorneys' offices to make the final determination.

Those over $10,000 tend not to be as much of a problem, but now there won't be any close cases. Federal adoption is pretty much guaranteed, which will encourage law enforcement to spend more time looking for expensive seizables than real criminal activity.

Then there's this statement, made by Sessions in his announcement of the resumption of federal indifference to individual property rights.

Our law enforcement officers do an incredible job. In fact, over the last decade, four out of five administrative civil asset forfeitures filed by federal law enforcement agencies were never challenged in court.

This goes past simple disingenuousness into the land of deliberate obtuseness. The absence of challenges is not the evidence of minimal forfeiture abuse. Fighting forfeiture is expensive and time-consuming. In most cases, it's futile. This is why so many seizures are $1,000 or less. The lower the dollar amount, the less likely it is someone will fight to get it back. As was pointed out by John Jackson on Twitter, this is like saying all fatal shootings by police officers are justified because not a single victim has filed a sustained complaint.

Sessions' forfeiture move isn't exactly being greeted with applause by members of the president's party. Sen. Mike Lee and Rep. Darrell Issa have already made statements condemning the loosening of federal restrictions. These reactions hew closer to the Republican party line -- small government, less regulation. For some reason, though, many conservatives seem to think expansions of government power and regulation is just fine when it comes to law enforcement or national security. This is the only reason the president's AG pick isn't facing more criticism for overriding states' reform efforts.

Filed Under: civil asset forfeiture, doj, forfeiture, jeff sessions, law enforcement

DOJ Boss Promises The Return Of Everything That Didn't Work During The Last 40 Years Of Drug Warring

from the throwback-Thursday-now-24/7 dept

Attorney General Jeff Sessions isn't much interested in the "justice" side of the Department of Justice. Instead, it appears he'd like to throw on his letterman's jacket and head back to his glory days as a hard-nosed, 1980s-vintage drug warrior. Things were better when Sessions was a federal prosecutor in Alabama, ringing up drug convictions at a rate four times the national average.

The word "reactionary" is thrown around a lot when describing Trump and his cabinet. But in Sessions' case, the term fits. Violent crimes rates have fallen steadily since the mid-1990s. Meanwhile, drug prices have dropped and purity has increased, despite four decades of harsh enforcement and trillions of dollars being thrown at the problem. Devil weed -- gateway drug and longtime conspirator in the violation of American women by filthy non-whites -- is now a socially and medically-accepted drug, legal in several states.

But there are violent crime increases in a few major cities. He's not sure what's to blame for this potential historical blip, but he has several theories. It might be soft-on-drugs Obama-era policies embraced by his predecessor's DOJ. It might be a lack of respect for law enforcement, which Sessions feels is a failure of the American public, rather than the failures of those who serve them. It might be rambunctious legislators scaling back asset forfeiture all over the country. Whatever it is, the current course needs to be reversed and the policies that failed for multiple decades be allowed to fail again.

Where else would Sessions espouse his "brave new old world" plan than standing over the desiccated corpse of a federally-funded program that did fuck all to curb drug use by teens and tweens: the 30th D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) Training Conference.

We were in the beginning of this fight, in 1983, when DARE was founded in Los Angeles. I believe that DARE was instrumental to our success by educating children on the dangers of drug use. I firmly believe that you have saved lives. And I want to say thank you for that. Whenever I ask adults around age 30 about prevention, they always mention the DARE program. Your efforts work. Lives and futures are saved.

Sessions can believe anything he wants about the DARE program, but the fact is it had almost zero impact on reducing drug use by children. Multiple studies of the program suggest zero impact is the best possible outcome. At worst, the program was viewed as ridiculous by students and actually introduced them to substances they weren't previously aware of. It often inspired curiosity. It rarely inspired lifelong abstinence.

But Sessions wants a bigger, better drug war -- one not constrained by logic, compassion, or mountains of evidence showing the war has been a catastrophic failure. Sessions hints we need more violence from our law enforcers because drug dealers are violent.

We know drug trafficking is an inherently violent business. If you want to collect a drug debt, you can’t, and don’t, file a lawsuit in court. You collect it by the barrel of a gun. There is no doubt that violence tends to rise with increased drug dealing.

As Scott Greenfield pointed out, if drugs were legal, you could file a lawsuit to recover debts -- a process far less likely to result in dead bodies.

Stats are spun to fit the narrative:

Sentences for federal drug crimes dropped by 18 percent from 2009 to 2016. Violent crime—which had been decreasing for two decades—suddenly went up again. Two years after this policy change, the United States suffered the largest single-year increase in the overall violent crime rate since 1991.

And yet, the violent crime rate remains at historic lows. Sessions sees a spike as a trend even though the numbers don't agree with him. In another speech, he specifies which year he's referring to:

In 2015, we as a nation suffered the largest single-year increase in the violent crime rate since 1991, and the largest jump in the murder rate since 1968.

But even the FBI can't buttress the AG's dark narrative.

According to the report, there were an estimated 1,197,704 violent crimes committed around the nation. While that was an increase from 2014 figures, the 2015 violent crime total was 0.7 percent lower than the 2011 level and 16.5 percent below the 2006 level.

The Sessions Drug War Wagon plows on, focused on preaching to the converted and riling up the most ignorant legislators and voters. At event after event, Sessions does everything but hand out laced Kool Aid and visions of a heavily-policed afterlife. Facts are out; verbal y-axis distortions are in.

The preliminary data for the first half of 2016 showed further increases, with large cities seeing an average increase in murders of nearly 22 percent compared with the same period the year before.

This spike in violent crime is not happening in every neighborhood or city. But the trend is real and should concern us all. It must not continue.

A spike is a trend in the eyes of AG Sessions, whose narrative conflicts with the FBI's findings. This is a spike -- compared year-to-year -- but one that can't even bring crime levels back to where they were a decade ago, much less the sky-high rates of the 80s and 90s when Sessions was prosecuting the hell out of Alabama.

Hence the return of asset forfeiture, presumably with enough force to overcome legislative resistance. From the same speech to the National District Attorneys Association:

In addition, we hope to issue this week a new directive on asset forfeiture—especially for drug traffickers. With care and professionalism, we plan to develop policies to increase forfeitures. No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crime. Adoptive forfeitures are appropriate as is sharing with our partners.

Sessions mentions criminals, but criminal charges have never been an integral part of the forfeiture process. The government likes taking stuff, but has less of an interest in proving the property owner is actually a criminal.

A new era of punitive justice is upon us. One that prefers prosecutions to prevention and harsh sentences to deterrents less likely to permanently ruin someone's life.

I recently sent out my directive on charging and sentencing. It is sound law and policy. Assistant U.S. Attorneys will simply be expected to charge the most serious readily provable offense. If that would be unjust, prosecutors can seek a waiver approval from a designated supervisor without Washington.

In short, we have ended the policies that handcuffed our federal prosecutors.

There will apparently be enough handcuffs for everyone else.

This is a frustrating turn of events. The new DOJ will elevate law enforcement officers and prosecutors above the people they serve. Everything that didn't work for three decades straight will be making a comeback. And if that fails to turn things around, I'm guessing it will be blamed on the media, anti-police sentiment, or whatever convenient scapegoat happens to be on hand when the blowback begins.

Filed Under: civil asset forfeiture, dare, doj, drug war, jeff sessions, justice department

Trump Fires FBI Director Comey

from the you're-fired dept

So... not quite sure what to make of this yet, but according to the NY Times, just a little while ago, Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey (of course, just after our podcast came out talking about how Comey seemed to be hopeful the Trump administration would approve his encryption backdoor plans).

“While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the bureau,” Mr. Trump said in a letter dated Tuesday to Mr. Comey.

“It is essential that we find new leadership for the F.B.I. that restores public trust and confidence in its vital law enforcement mission,” Mr. Trump wrote.

The full letter is... even more crazy:

If you can't read that, it says:

Dear Director Comey:

I have received the attached letters from the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General of the United States recommending your dismissal as the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I have accepted their recommendation and you are hereby terminated and removed from office, effective immediately.

While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgement of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau.

It is essential that we find new leadership for the FBI that restores public trust and confidence in its vital law enforcement mission.

I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors.

Donald J. Trump

I'm not sure why it even bothers to mention that Trump himself is not a target of an investigation (or that Comey told him that three times). It's already known that the wider administration is subject to an investigation, and even if you don't believe that such an investigation will turn up anything, it's still happening. At the very least, this should call into question whether or not there can effectively be any investigation into the administration that won't involve meddling by the administration. That alone should be a big concern.

I don't think we've ever said anything particularly supportive of Comey, who we've disagreed with on a large range of issues, but it's difficult to see how this is going to be a good thing. It's already been admitted that the FBI was investigating potential ties between Russia and the administration. Whether or not that investigation had anything at all to do with the firing, there's no way to spin this that looks good.

Yes, the President has the power to fire the head of the FBI... but when that FBI was conducting an independent investigation of the President, any such firing is clearly going to be seen as politically motivated. And, yes, it's important to note that this is NOT entirely unprecedented. President Clinton fired FBI director William Sessions soon after taking office as well, though there wasn't the stench of an FBI investigation into the President going around at the time. If anything, the comparison that seems slightly more apt that people are making is to Archibald Cox, the independent special prosecutor that Richard Nixon fired, leading to the resignations of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General (contrast that to today's news, where it was those two roles who recommended this firing...).

Comey was not a particularly good FBI director, and we've covered numerous problems with his leadership. But that doesn't mean that whoever replaces him won't be even worse.

Filed Under: doj, donald trump, fbi, fired, investigation, james comey, jeff sessions

The US Charging Assange For Publishing Documents Would Be An Unprecedented Attempt To Chill A Free Press

from the I-guess-we're-'opening-up'-the-First-Amendment-now dept

Obama waged a war on whistleblowers during his eight-year run. Sure, it was done under a sunny facade of "transparency," but the former president set the gold standard for whistleblower prosecutions, performing more than every other president until then… combined.

Punishing whistleblowers is for amateurs. The Trump Administration will show everyone how it's done.

US authorities have prepared charges to seek the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, US officials familiar with the matter tell CNN.

For what, you may ask? Publication of leaked documents? Well, there's a little more to it than that.

The US view of WikiLeaks and Assange began to change after investigators found what they believe was proof that WikiLeaks played an active role in helping Edward Snowden, a former NSA analyst, disclose a massive cache of classified documents.

Hmm. But the Washington Post, Intercept, Guardian, and New York Times also did this. There's been some online speculation this actually refers to Assange's Russian-host-maneuvering and flight plan assistance -- that brief moment where journalists and g-men packed a plane to Cuba only to find themselves Snowden-less. But Ellen Nakashima's article for the Washington Post digs a little deeper into the proposed charges, citing evidence in Chelsea Manning's trial, where Assange assisted Manning with password cracking to sweep up digital breadcrumbs. (A 2012 DOJ warrant gives a bit more insight into the possible charges, which include espionage, CFAA violations, and "conversion" of stolen documents.)

But, again, this is nothing out of the ordinary for journalists who publish leaked documents. As Nakashima points out, helping sources erase their digital footprints is just something good journalists do. Prosecuting Assange for these efforts would set a terrible precedent.

[J]ournalists routinely employ methods — or tell sources to employ methods — that will help them avoid being identified. Justice Department officials in the previous administration believed that prosecuting Assange or other members of WikiLeaks could open the door to prosecuting news organizations and journalists who published classified information, and so they opted instead to target people, such as Manning, who had clearances to access such information and gave it to reporters.

Obama may have gone after a bunch of whistleblowers, but he was unwilling to cross the First Amendment line by punishing those who published leaked documents. Apparently, Trump and his DOJ have no such qualms.

Prosecutors have struggled with whether the First Amendment precluded the prosecution of Assange, but now believe they have found a way to move forward.

And they may have, without amending the First Amendment. But it will take a whole lot of cooperation to bring Assange in. The Ecuadorian embassy has managed to hold off Sweden for years and the country's government isn't exactly best friends with the US nor is it exactly respectful of US law.

Assange isn't a US citizen, so he's not automatically guaranteed First Amendment protections, even if the distribution of leaked documents is very much a journalistic enterprise. The US government doesn't automatically refuse to extend constitutional protections to foreign citizens, but it might be able to pick and choose which of those it wants to extend to Assange (though if he's charged in the US, he does get the benefit of all Constitutional protections). Even if the current DOJ can find a lawful way to prosecute Assange for still-unnamed charges related to leaked documents, this is an extremely dangerous direction for the federal government to be moving in.

This unofficial announcement by the DOJ is an implicit threat to journalists everywhere. You may hate Assange and/or Wikileaks, but it may be your favorite leak-friendly news sources facing charges next. Distinguishing your favorite source from Wikileaks is not nearly as easy as you might think.

Filed Under: doj, first amendment, free press, free speech, jeff sessions, julian assange
Companies: wikileaks

City Officials Step Up After DOJ Told To Stop Worrying About Civil Rights Violations By Law Enforcement Agencies

from the bold-'us-vs.-them'-strategy-to-prop-up-flagging-LEO-morale dept

It appears the DOJ will no longer be in the business of policing the police. A memo issued by every cop's new best friend, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, states the DOJ will be doing more to empower police and will conduct fewer civil rights investigations of law enforcement agencies. On one hand, it makes sense to have the locals handle their own problems. On the other hand, the locals have repeatedly shown a willingness to ignore abusive policing until the feds are forced to step in.

It may be difficult to roll back DOJ agreements and oversight of investigated agencies immediately. It may, in fact, be impossible. Those consent decrees that have made their way through the court system on the way to being put into force would take some serious litigating to roll back. It's not clear the DOJ's interested in attempting an expensive clawback of police oversight and policy changes.

It's those that haven't been formalized through this process that are in danger of being scaled back, if not removed completely. The DOJ has filed a motion asking for time to review its proposed consent decree with the Baltimore PD in light of AG Sessions' memo. The DOJ also just finished wrapping up an investigation of the Chicago PD, but statements made by Sessions and President Trump indicate the White House and DOJ are more interested in solving Chicago's crime problem, rather than its police problem.

Sessions himself has no interest in police misconduct or systemic civil liberties violations and abuse the DOJ has uncovered over the past eight years. He claimed the lengthy investigation the DOJ's civil rights division performed produced nothing more than "anecdotal" evidence. He made this claim while admitting he hasn't read any of the investigative reports.

By not reading the reports, Sessions won't have to deal with contradictory thoughts while shifting the DOJ towards its new position as a law enforcement booster club. Adam Serwer of The Atlantic points out the vast amount of denial Sessions is swimming in.

As attorney general, Sessions said he read a summary, but not the full Ferguson report, which found that “95% of Manner of Walking charges; 94% of all Fail to Comply charges; 92% of all Resisting Arrest charges; 92% of all Peace Disturbance charges; and 89% of all Failure to Obey charges” were filed against black residents. But on the basis of the summary alone, Sessions concluded that the report was “pretty anecdotal” and “not scientifically based.”

The refusal to believe police abuse could be systemic rather than individual is, in the aftermath of all the data collected by the very agency Sessions now leads, a form of denial. Nor can Sessions’s decision be justified by the familiar excuse that police reforms lead to higher crime rates—the notion that “it is not the responsibility of the federal government to manage non-federal law enforcement agencies,” is a normative standard that would eschew federal oversight of local police regardless of the crime rate or the gravity of any abuse that might occur.

This is a problem that's going to be bigger than just the guy sitting at the head of the DOJ organizational chart. Sessions' memo made it clear he actually believes misconduct and discriminatory policing are the handywork of a "few bad apples." That cannot possibly be true unless it's just a "few bad apples" issuing 90% of the summonses and performing 90% of the arrests. Every investigation by the DOJ turns up systemic abuses. Not one has reached the conclusion that the problems would all go away with a handful of firings.

Sessions' memo is morale booster for bad cops. It states the DOJ will focus on everything but systemic police misconduct and every excuse will be made to clear cops of wrongdoing. The DOJ's civil rights division at least gave people hope that America's policing could be improved, possibly even rising to the level of "constitutional" most of the time. That hope is now gone. As Adam Serwer puts it, Sessions' DOJ is abandoning the public by turning a blind eye to misconduct by public servants.

Sessions’s memo reads as an announcement that it is no longer the business of the federal government if American citizens’ rights are violated by those sworn to protect them and empowered with lethal force to do so. When local governments violate the basic constitutional rights of citizens, Americans are supposed to be able to look to the federal government to protect those rights. Sessions has made clear that when it comes to police abuses, they’re now on their own.

For what it's worth, some cities whose consent decrees might disappear thanks to the DOJ's new marching orders are promising to carry on without the federal government's carrots and sticks. Baltimore officials are saying they're not interested in rollbacks or compromises in the proposed consent decree the DOJ wants more time to examine in light of Sessions' "law and order" memo. [Warning: ad blocker-blocking dead ahead.]

Any interruption in moving forward may have the effect of eroding the trust that we are working hard to establish," Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh said in a statement.

The same goes for Chicago, where a consent decree may never be put in place by the DOJ.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and police chief Eddie Johnson have also vowed to press ahead with reforms within the city's police department, noting that a plan has already been drafted in recent weeks.

This is encouraging, even if the statements may end up being more sincere than the follow-through. The discouraging fact is these cities would have likely done nothing about the problems in their law enforcement agencies without the DOJ stepping in. If the DOJ's no longer going to be pursuing investigations of local PDs, it's all in the hands of local officials, and most are willing to ignore issues until they become front-page news around the nation.

Filed Under: baltimore, chicago, civil rights, doj, jeff sessions, police