open thread Conyer's NSL hearing

John Conyers is holding a hearing this morning about abuse of the National Security Letter powers.

Glenn Fine, Justice Dept. Inspector General, is reporting on their investigation.

I have to go to work, but we should be watching this !

Here's the committee page link http://judiciary.house.gov/

Now do something !

•  For those who need a direct link to video

  here's the Real Audio stream.

  by bumblebums on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:07:05 AM PDT

•  Do Something?

  Like what?

  If anyone's interested in contacting their CongressCritters to ask them to support Conyers in his efforts with these hearings, the number for the capitol switchboard is

  Get a pen and paper now...
  
  202-224-3121

  by Alegre on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:09:01 AM PDT

  •  Toll Free # - 1-800-828-0498 n/t

    by Alegre on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:11:12 AM PDT

  •  That would be the something I had in mind

    as well as listening/watching and sharing with others what you've heard/seen, since this one is a bit more obscure, perhaps, than the Plame hearing.

    by murphy on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:38:26 AM PDT

•  Can't see a thing

  but I'm listening along.

  by Kimberley on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:09:05 AM PDT

•  I'll delete mine. Thanks.

  by BR Janet on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:09:43 AM PDT

•  I can't find a witness list for this

  anybody been able to round one up?

  by Kimberley on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:10:48 AM PDT

  •  See my "diary" below :) n/t

    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:11:33 AM PDT

•  Oh well - I've spent the last half hour

  putting this diary together:

  Conyers, John Jr. U.S. Representative, D-MI  
  Fine, Glenn A. Inspector General, Department of Justice  
  Caproni, Valerie General Counsel, Federal Bureau of Investigation  

  Tuesday 03/20/2007 - 9:30 AM
  2141 Rayburn House Office Building
  Full Committee
  Hearing on: The Inspector General's Independent Report on the F.B.I.'s Use of National Security Letters.

  You can watch live here:

  CSPAN3 Judiciary Committee Coverage

  Here is an editorial by Warren Goldstein, chairman of the history department at the University of Hartford, that gives a good overview of what the abuses by the FBI encompass along with historical perspective on the FBI's past abuses.

  Never let a civil right get in the way

  FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III acknowledges a serious problem, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says these are serious issues and President George W. Bush says, "Those problems will be addressed as quickly as possible." All, the inspector general included, close ranks around the idea that these abuses were due to errors, rather than intent.

  Nonsense. Only Americans' profound historical ignorance about the FBI - and willingness to suspend critical faculties - can give this argument a shred of legitimacy.

  In the three years covered by the inspector general's report, the FBI issued 143,000 national security requests, collecting information from banks, credit, telephone and Internet companies, and many others on more than 52,000 people. That's 130 letters a day, counting Sundays.

  May as well not let it go to waste... :)

  by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:11:09 AM PDT

  •  Bravo!

    by Kimberley on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:12:17 AM PDT

  •  Hate when that happens

    But I'm sure there will be a need for follow up diaries and continuations.

    by joanneleon on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:13:31 AM PDT

    •  It's no biggie - at least I caught this thread

      early enough to make it a relevant comment so it was worth it.

      I'm also trying to find Gore's testimony which should be live and CSPAN promoed it early this am, but I can't seem to find it on CSPAN - the energy committee live video link is still not sending a feed.

      So many great hearings.  So little time.

      by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:16:23 AM PDT

      •  Gore's testimony is tomorrow

        by bumblebums on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:17:46 AM PDT

        •  Oh thank you!!

          I couldn't figure out why there wasn't more activity :)

          Edwards released his plan this morning on CNN and they talked about Gore testifying and I just thought today was the day....

          by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:20:02 AM PDT

          •  It's going to be

            a total zoo.

            by bumblebums on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:23:25 AM PDT

  •  thanks

    I saw no thread, so put this one up. This is just too damned important to go uncommented upon !

    (At work now.)

    Please rec diary so people will see it !

    by murphy on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:18:38 AM PDT

•  Panelists are

  Glenn Fine, Inspector General, Department of Justice

  Valerie Caproni, FBI General Counsel

  Jerry Nadler, who's on this committee, was on C-Span this morning (Washington Journal) talking about this.

  by bumblebums on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:11:45 AM PDT

•  Recommended

  These hearing threads are really important.  I can't watch the hearing this morning so I'll be appreciating this thread later on when I can come back and read through it.

  by joanneleon on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:11:48 AM PDT

•  It's also on C-Span3

  Judiciary Committee Hearing on NSLs

  by BR Janet on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:11:50 AM PDT

•  Opening statements given

  Republicans predictably argue it's all a bureaucratic procedural problem, not a problem in the Patriot Act. Terror, fear, 9/11. Terror, fear, 9/11......

  by BR Janet on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:13:15 AM PDT

•  Glen Fine: Overview included most of what

  we've seen in the press. Does point out that there's no evidence of intentional abuse and that FBI was receptive to the audit findings.

  by BR Janet on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:14:20 AM PDT

  •  Pay no attention

    In other words, they want us to pay no attention to the men behind the cretin...

    by Nina Katarina on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:14:50 AM PDT

    •  147,000 boo boos - oops. n/t

      by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:18:45 AM PDT

•  Valerie Caproni offering point-by-point

  address to audit findings and explaining the internal controls that have since been put in place.

  She is outlining the procedural changes that have been put in place to prevent abuse of NSL and exigent letters, including a means of making sure there is a matching investigation and subsequent warrant.

  by BR Janet on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:19:18 AM PDT

•  I didn't think I could lose more faith

  in the FBI, but Valerie Caproni is hard at work exacerbating my anxiety about bureaucratic abuses paired with internal oversight incompetence.

  by Kimberley on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:19:21 AM PDT

  •  I remember when people were really afraid

    of the FBI.  I guess not enough people have been abused by their abuse of power yet for their actions to have their full effect on the psyche of Americans.

    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:26:01 AM PDT

•  Caproni: "Rules are only as good as they are

  followed. FBI will establish a large multidisciplinary compliance program. To be effective, we must be trusted."

  by BR Janet on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:23:35 AM PDT

•  She's rationalizing spying on Americans

  and turning the public into snitches.

  Sick.

  by Kimberley on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:24:05 AM PDT

•  Here come the questions....

  by BR Janet on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:24:08 AM PDT

•  The FBI was being warned that they were

  going too far as far back as 2004 - Conyers

  by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:26:49 AM PDT

•  The IG

  Dismisses numerous warnings for the FBI and writes the abuses off as unintentional "shortcuts".

  by Kimberley on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:27:06 AM PDT

•  Pretty good AP news story

  on Yahoo news:

  Congress to probe improper FBI spying

  Glenn A. Fine, the Justice Department inspector general who revealed FBI data-gathering abuses in a 130-page report last week, was to appear before the
  House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. The panel also called FBI General Counsel Valerie Caproni, whose office was taken to task by Fine for inadequate supervision of the bureau's use of documents called national security letters to gather data.

  In a review of headquarters files and a sampling of just four of the FBI's 56 field offices, Fine found 48 violations of law or presidential directives during 2003-2005 and estimated that "a significant number of ... violations throughout the FBI have not been identified or reported."

  The bureau has launched an audit of all 56 field offices to determine the full extent of the problem.

  On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee hears from Fine and FBI Director Robert Mueller on the same topic.

  http://news.yahoo.com/...

  by joanneleon on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:27:30 AM PDT

•  Conyers to Fine:

  C: How did you determine that none of the errors were intentional? How could that be if they've known about excesses since 2005 and they were warned about in early 2005?

  F: I don't think they intended to go out to get information that they couldn't get any other way. People simply didn't follow the rules.

  C: Do you think the law was too complicated?

  F: We didn't ask everyone what they were thinking.

  C: There's no way we can tell.

  F: FBI does need to go back look to hold people accountable.

  C: Do you make a distinction b/t NSLs and exigent letters in terms of offense?

  F: Yes. Exigent letters were more serious. There's a voluntary process and FBI took rules out of context and applied to the exigent letters process.

  C: Are you satisfied w/ the steps being taken?

  F: We have to wait and see. They are taking this seriously.

  by BR Janet on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:29:14 AM PDT

•  IG

  Finds the exigent letters the most disturbing and inappropriate aspect of this.

  Conyers: Are you satisfied with the FBI's efforts to remedy the situation?

  IG: Can't say for sure, but he feels certain they take it seriously.

  by Kimberley on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:29:37 AM PDT

•  IG - my job is not to talk about problems with

  the law - just to apply it.

  me: at the level of an IG I think it is part of his responsibility to identify issues that arise with bad law and try to advance change.

  by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:32:35 AM PDT

•  There was a reference to the Patriot Act

  by an FBI agent in a TV show (Prison Break) last night, who was challenged by his deputy when he ordered a questionable arrest. He said something like, "Patriot Act. I can arrest your grandmother for crocheting her doily incorrectly."

  by bumblebums on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:33:35 AM PDT

  •  Scary. n/t

    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:35:28 AM PDT

•  Ah move from

  "criminal mindset" to "intelligence mindset"

  That is an interesting straw man Caproni offers.

  Dangerous distinction without a difference as the intelligence should be collected only about "criminals" not everyone in the freakin' world.

  by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:34:47 AM PDT

•  Lamar Smith (R-Tx) to both:

  S: Do you all feel the problem is with the way it was enforced or with the law itself?
  F: I'm not in a position to say. My job is to look at the application of the law.
  C: Not w/the law, but there are specific rules and agents don't really understand.

  S: Why are NSL important?
  C: They are critical for building blocks to build investigations. Prosecutors issue grand jury subpoenas, but in terrorism cases, there's not necessarily an active investigation.
  F: I think they're important investigative tools in counterintelligence investigations. There needs to be important checks, however.

  S: Most but not all NSLs were used to get info through other means.
  F: I couldn't tell of the 739 because we couldn't determine there was a case. We found 7 that were clearly illegal or got illegal info.

  by BR Janet on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:35:34 AM PDT

•  This isn't helpful for those of you

  that can't hear or watch this but I've just got  to say it anyway.

  I'm too flabbergasted to write a running log. This is completely disturbing to me; completely and utterly disturbing.

  by Kimberley on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:40:10 AM PDT

  •  It is sort of through the looking glass when

    Sensenbrenner is one of the people asking a challenging question though.

    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:45:40 AM PDT

•  Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)

  N: What's the statutory basis for exigent letters?
  C: 2702
  N: What do you have to do?
  C: You explain to the carrier and the carrier decides. It's not compulsory.
  N: The phone company has no interest in my privacy.
  C: I disagree that they have no interest. They frequently asked for letters to justify the request.
  N: In this morning's WaPo, it appears they can make an oral request and no follow-up paperwork is necessary.
  C: That's not the policy. If a request is made on emergency basis, it has to be documented. If there's no time, an oral request has to be documented with the authorization.
  N: Accessibility of PIN #s. So gov't can get a person's PIN # for accounts. What protection is there?
  F: FBI can get bank records. That's why there needs to be controls.

  by BR Janet on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:42:15 AM PDT

•  Agent accessed

  PIN numbers for accounts?!?!?

  by Kimberley on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:42:30 AM PDT

•  Man, it's sweet to see Sensenbrenner

  deferring to Conyers.

  Ha ha.

  /Nelson

  by bumblebums on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:43:15 AM PDT

•  Sensenbrenner:

  150,000 letters -

  "Do we have that many terrorists running around the country?  If so I'm really worried."

  by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:46:29 AM PDT

•  Sensenbrenner

  S: Did FBI just use NSLs to get massive info after Congress rejected administrative subpoenas?
  C: No.
  S: How can you account for the fact for the increase in NSL [since NSLs have been around since '86]?
  C: Post 9/11, agents were moved to counterintelligence and told to follow all leads. We were focusing on intelligence-driven toolbox, as opposed to using grand jury subpoenas.
  F: I agree. After 9/11, they're attempting to track down leads.

  S: Observation, one of the things that gets people in this town in trouble is over-reach. I hope this would be a lesson that FBI can't get away with this.

  by BR Janet on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:47:39 AM PDT

•  Wow -- Sensenbrenner

  was great.

  by gchaucer2 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:47:52 AM PDT

•  Sensenbrenner

  One of the big problems in this town is overreaching - my sense is that the FBI has overreached and undermined the support for these important duties they perform (paraphrased)

  by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:48:20 AM PDT

•  Yikes!

  Information gathering against U.S. citizens is about 1/2 and 1/2??????  With no freaking subpoenas.  This is so scary.

  by gchaucer2 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:49:55 AM PDT

•  20 year retention of all this data

  Jesus...

  by Kimberley on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:50:02 AM PDT

•  Scott - raises "criminal" v. "intelligence"

  mindset.  "You're using this mindset against United States Citizens?"  - good question.

  They keep our records for 20 years after applying this intelligence mindset.

  They don't tag the data, but they can't tell how many convictions resulted from these letters.

  by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:50:33 AM PDT

•  FISA would sink this program says Caproni

  I say that would be good.

  by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:52:27 AM PDT

  •  No doubt!

    This program sucks. Seriously, this invasive intelligence gathering among American citizens is infuriating.

    Good-fucking-riddance.

    by Kimberley on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:55:34 AM PDT

•  Bobby Scott (D-Va) to Fine

  S: Has anyone been sanctioned for misrepresentation?
  F: No
  S: Ms. Caproni, you said there's a shift to intelligence. Does this include US citizens.
  C: Sometimes. 50%
  S: How long do you keep it?
  C: Normal archive rules, 20 years.
  S: How many convictions from the info from letters?
  C: Difficult to know. We don't tag the data.
  S: Mr. Fine?
  F: Nothing's tagged.
  S: What info is obtained that couldn't have been gotten through normal FISA courts?
  C: Anything we found could be gotten through FISA 215, but we issue 1,000s and it would sink the system. We don't have the infrastructure.
  S: So it's administrative, not necessary. Mr. Fine, is there an ongoing investigation when they issue these letters?
  F: There is supposed to be. There were instances where they were issued out of control files.
  S: What's the standard for issuing these letters?
  C: There was bureaucratic problem that we've worked out. All were tied to open investigations.

  by BR Janet on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:53:30 AM PDT

  •  Dang, Br Janet!

    Are you a court stenographer?  Great transcription of the essence.  Kudos!

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:55:22 AM PDT

•  Howard Coble (R-Nc):

  Coble: Will response to 3/9 letter be sufficient?
  F: We'll see.
  C: We'll have to work to get the trust of this committee.
  Coble: Can FBI implement in the 4 months.
  C: I hope so. We will have made substantial progress.
  Coble: Does FBI challenge the report of Mr. Fine?
  F: No. We agree w/the report.

  by BR Janet on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:56:06 AM PDT

•  People being tossed for disruption. "We don't

  trust the FBI now."

  by BR Janet on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:57:08 AM PDT

  •  She speaks for me

    And my grandfather used to work for the FBI.

    This is heinous.

    by Kimberley on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:58:54 AM PDT

•  No

  This is beyond bad.

  They need to shit can this program - today.

  by Kimberley on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:02:19 AM PDT

•  Mel Watt (D-Nc) to Fine RE extrapolating #s

  W: Have you done the extrapolation for me?
  F: Not really. Starting point would be 144,000 letters.
  W: And extrapolating possible violations...
  F: ~7%, 3,000 (quick math)
  W: So it's possible the FBI possibly violated rights how many times?
  F: If statistically extrapolated, possibly several thousand times.
  W: Ms. Caproni, why or why shouldn't the public be concerned about the violation of the law and lack of process?
  C: They should be and we're going to fix it. Most serious errors were obtaining full credit reports.
  F: If ~1% were serious misconduct, that would be 600 cases.
  C: We are quite concerned. We're trying to sequester and destroy the info.
  W: How many files have been destroyed based on this investigation?
  C: I don't know.

  Watt repeating the question.
  C: Not much [a couple of credit reports].
  W: Has anyone been punished?
  C: We're still investigating.

  by BR Janet on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:03:40 AM PDT

•  Aww, poor Dan Lungren is "disappointed"

  in the FBI, after his knee jerked for years in its defense.

  Awake now, Dan?

  by bumblebums on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:05:28 AM PDT

  •  Yowser!

    He's more than awake -- if investigation not done in 4 months you might not have NSL's.  Great when the Repugs sound like they get it and are pissed.  Great assist to Conyers.

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:07:54 AM PDT

•  One Percent were "serious" violations.

  Doesn't Dick Cheney have some doctrine about one percent?  Perhaps his doctrine should be applied here and we can just shut down this program.

  Congressman Watt -

  Have you destroyed any information?

  Caproni is evasive and then - {Jesus! - me} -

  They are using a "sampling process" to investigate the law breaking.  

  Translation: they are going to randomly freakin' apply the law as if a poll of a 1,000 out of nearly 150,000 is going to be good enough.

  by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:06:59 AM PDT

•  Whomever this is talking now

  Has my full backing in his threat to pull those NSL's in 4 mos. or less if they don't shape the fuck up. He's totally indignant, as am I.

  This is so completely foul.

  by Kimberley on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:07:00 AM PDT

  •  It is Lungren which means that the FBI

    may actually be in pretty big trouble.

    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:08:21 AM PDT

  •  Dan Lungren

    He's an embarrassed fuckhead.

    by bumblebums on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:08:59 AM PDT

    •  The Libertarian Revolt will be televised. n/t

      by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:10:01 AM PDT

      •  Let's hope they are paying attention. n/t

        by gchaucer2 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:11:25 AM PDT

•  Dan Lungren (R-Ca): I've been defending FBI

  for these NSLs and then I read a report that sounds like it's talking about 3rd graders. If you can't get the fixes in in 4 months, then you probably won't have NSL ability. You in the FBI have an obligation to make good on the promise that the terrorists will not accomplish by indirection that they can't do directly, that is, destroy the Constitution.

  Don't tell us you hope to have it fixed in 4 months, tell me it will be fixed in 4 months.

  C: It will be done.
  L: Mr. Fine, you're the IG for FBI. I congratulate you on what you've done. How do you explain carelessness, confusion, sloppiness, etc. with the FBI? Should I be more worried that in something as important NSL that we have such carelessness....?
  F: FBI didn't take putting in place controls seriously enough when they got these authorities. There's no excuse for it.
  L: Are NSL of value?
  F: Yes. They are indispensable for counterintelligence.

  by BR Janet on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:09:29 AM PDT

•  Sheila J Lee (D-Tx): Evokes McCarthyism &

  FBI investigation of Martin Luther King. "A journey to a certain place is paved with good intentions."

  Constitution reminds us that tyranny and lack of control can get the best of us.

  L: Did you determine the % that generated into terrorist incidences or prosecutions?
  C: I do not.
  L: I want them.
  C: We will brief the committee as soon as we have that info.
  L: How soon can you get those numbers? It makes a difference.
  C: I know my assurance is not worth a lot, but they weren't on a fishing expeditiion. I'll let director know that you want the #s ASAP.
  L: Mr. Fine, president signed a signing statement that said he would interpret the Patriot Act as unitary executive. Don't you think there should be restraints in place? Don't you think Pat Act may be too broad?
  F: I believe there should be effective controls and a balance. I share the concerns of this committee. Department did co-operate with us.
  C: Signing statement had no impact.

  by BR Janet on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:15:51 AM PDT

•  legal question:

  If an illegally obtained NSL is used to initiate an investigation that ultimately leads to a conviction, can that conviction be overturned now?

  by lulu57 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:18:50 AM PDT

  •  If you aren't already renditioned

    a good attorney most likely could quash all evidence which is the fruit of an illegal investigation.

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:21:25 AM PDT

    •  Good point

      about the renditioning.

      So the story here is that for three plus years, the FBI has been gathering illegal information that is, essentially, useless. Yes? They abused their authority, violated citizens' civil rights, and all that stuff, and for what? All information is tainted. All cases based on this info could be thrown out. All the taxpayer dollars are wasted. Terrorists, if they actually found any, can go free.

      I suppose all of this is quite obvious, I just didn't think much about it before. Thanks to everyone who's watching, blogging, keeping track. You guys rock.

      by lulu57 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:32:38 AM PDT

      •  This illegality

        is precisely what makes a good prosecutor want to tear his/her hair out.  In addition, think of all the folks who will now want a new trial because of the USAG fiasco.  Millions of dollars will be wasted going forward.  And, the potential of real terrorists getting a free ride is really frightening.

        by gchaucer2 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:35:22 AM PDT

•  Rick Keller (R-Fl): Raising that info available

  through grand jury subpoenas or FISA courts.

  C: This shift to intelligence gathering from criminal evidence gathering has made NSLs necessary.

  Keller is mostly rehashing questions and answers already given.

  K: Does Ms. Orlando housewife have anything to worry about?
  F: It could be if there was inadvertent contact. If there were no contact, then there's little change.
  K: Did you see NSLs used when there was no relevance to terrorism?
  F: We couldn't say. We did find that the counsel of the field offices didn't check on this and that they acceded to the arguments of the agents.
  K: Ms. Caproni, what's an example of the best use of NSL when it's necessary.
  C: For example, London bombing.
  K: Because....?
  C: We needed to know very quickly. Investigators did move quickly.

  by BR Janet on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:21:55 AM PDT

  •  aha !

    FBI now doing something it was never designed to do ! No wonder there are problems.

    by murphy on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:29:08 AM PDT

•  Maxine Waters

  wanted the witnesses sworn in.  Conyers -- too late.  But Conyers says that they could still be prosecuted for false testimony before committee.

  by gchaucer2 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:23:21 AM PDT

  •  Can't believe Conyers forgot that !

    Though after all these years of the reThugs not wanting people sworn, I guess it's kind of understandable.

    Maxine must have missed the very beginning of the hearing-- as did I, to be fair.

    by murphy on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:28:08 AM PDT

•  Waters: Were these agents sworn in?

  Answer: No.

  Waters: I ask that we swear these witnesses in now.

  Answer: Too late.

  Waters: I would have preferred that they have been sworn under oath.

  by Dunvegan on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:24:42 AM PDT

•  Maxine Waters (D-Ca): Were they sworn in?

  They weren't but Conyers said they were still subject to punishment should they "mispeak."

  Maxine

  W: Exigent letters are used to get around NSLs?
  F: Yes.
  W: Do you still have contracts with those telephone companies, or other companies to provide you with information?
  C: Yes, for phone companies, but I don't know about others.
  W: How much do the taxpayers pay to have the phone companies spy on us? Did companies mine info? How much?
  C: The companies sent data files, didn't share database, did not collect info on millions of Americans.
  W: How long will it take to remove data?
  C: I anticipate at least a couple of weeks.
  W: Was there a court order?
  C: Info was supposed to have been obtained legally.
  W: Are you still issuing certificate letters?
  C: No
  W: When did you stop?
  C: As soon as report came out.
  W: Have you destroyed info collected w/certificate letters?
  C: We're not going to.
  W: If they're legal and proper why did you stop using them?
  C: We decided NSLs were better.
  W: How do you determine that info should be destroyed.

  {Sorry, missed the end}

  by BR Janet on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:29:57 AM PDT

  •  God I love this woman ! nt

    by murphy on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:33:41 AM PDT

•  I've got to check out guys. Keep on

  transcribing.

  by BR Janet on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:33:50 AM PDT

  •  Great Job BR Janet n/t

    by donnamarie on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:34:37 AM PDT

  •  Yes, great job -- thank you.

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:36:15 AM PDT

  •  excellent work

    thanks so much.

    by murphy on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:40:03 AM PDT

•  Stephen Cohen

  Cohen: Did you do any study for similiarity in demographics?

  Answer. No.

  C: Were all on going investigations?

  A. As a part of our investigation we couldn't do that.

  C: Do you thing you should look to see if a certain demographic wasn't looked at unduly?

  A. Well (basically he said these were phone numbers, and trying to figure if a demographic group was called out unduly would be extremely difficult)

  by Dunvegan on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:36:43 AM PDT

•  Hank Johnson D GA

  wants copies of contracts.

  Asking how so many thousands of cases result in only 1 prosecution.

  by murphy on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:52:05 AM PDT

•  Re: contracts between phone comp.

  and FBI -- answer cut off too soon.  She seem to be ready to say that she would have to see if there would be any sensitive language.  WTF?  If it isn't sensitive enough for the phone companies -- how could it possibly be too sensitive for the House to view?  Damn, I wish she had finished that one and had a follow up.

  by gchaucer2 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:52:38 AM PDT

  •  Conyers said all docs

    mentioned and in additional questions from committee members will be expected. He means business.

    by murphy on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:54:55 AM PDT

    •  FBI

      can still claim "national security" and not turn over some files.  That's the catch-all for obfuscation.

      by gchaucer2 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:56:55 AM PDT

•  Republican from Florida

  sucking up to witness re: sports history of their common high school.

  They keep doing this shit.

  by murphy on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:53:35 AM PDT

  •  At least they waste

    their own time with this kiss-up b.s.

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:55:29 AM PDT

•  The use of blanket NSLs

  post-IG investigation...

  Question about how that can be characterized a unintentional.

  Caproni says a local cop using a tool like this would be troubling.

  Response by the questioner (with experience in corruption department) says that would be more than "troubling". It would result in an investigation.

  Caproni's playing dumb.

  by Kimberley on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:04:31 AM PDT

•  Adam Schiff D Burbank, CA

  says if local cop tried to get info under false pretenses, as FBI did with NSL saying there was a subpoena pending, local cop would be under investigation for violation of law !

  by murphy on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:05:05 AM PDT

•  Up or out policy

  is expunging some of the FBI's best supervisors through intimidation.

  The suggestion that FBI actively rejecting internal oversight...

  Caproni defending the policy as a "net positive".  

  by Kimberley on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:08:57 AM PDT

•  Louie Ghomert (R-Tx): I'm glad we inserted IG

  report into Patriot Act. Seems overzealousness was found in new agents. Do you agree?
  C: I don't know if I agree.
  G: Are you familiar w/new personnel policy (Up or Out Policy)?
  C: Yes.
  G: [Speechifying about experienced agent turnover. There's not been desire for oversight and has this up or out policy led to turnover of experienced supervisors.]
  C: Fine's report covered a time when there were experienced supervisors. Policy not being revisited.
  G: What are you going to do make sure this doesn't happen again.
  C: More training. Auditing practice. Create a compliance program to assure that NSLs and other tools are controlled.

  [Everyone remember to recommend the diary, if you haven't done so.]

  by BR Janet on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:11:10 AM PDT

  •  Welcome back. Yaaayyy.

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:13:51 AM PDT

•  Caproni's business-speak

  is tap dancing all over my last nerve.

  She's loading up her answers with so much lard that it's coming off as obfuscation.

  by Kimberley on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:11:46 AM PDT

  •  She is NOT covering herself in glory

    that's for sure !

    by murphy on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:15:45 AM PDT

•  Hmmmmm,

  exclusionary rule raised.  FBI lawyer doesn't think it is a 4th amendment issue because records taken from third party.  This will be very interesting as I am under the understanding that illegal searches are illegal searches.  I can see a ton of litigation up to SCOTUS on this one.

  by gchaucer2 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:13:22 AM PDT

•  Exclusionary rule wouldn't apply ?

  FBI Caproni thinks it wouldn't because no 4th amendment problem with stuff held by 3rd party (like phone company).

  Questions on this line by Rep. Artur Davis, D Alabama

  by murphy on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:14:44 AM PDT

•  Too many scandals

  There are so many scandals that old scandals don't have a chance competing with the new ones.

  National Security Letters are actually a new scandal. I read a column y someone from teh ACLU sayig that Gonzales should go without mentioning the US Attorney firiings. He was dealing only with NSLs.

  by Frank Palmer on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:16:21 AM PDT

  •  Oversight's a bitch!

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:19:01 AM PDT

  •  Was telling my son this a.m.

    I thought Watergate was a once in a lifetime event. OOOBOY was I wrong !

    by murphy on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:19:35 AM PDT

•  Arthur Davis ( D-Al): Exclusionary rules apply

  from improper use of these NSLs?

  C: Not a 4th amendment problem. We're not minimizing this.
  D: Do you know Yousef? Is it true that he raised concerns about the use of these letters?
  C: I don't know the answer to that question. He is in litigation against the agency.
  D: Mr. Fine, that you didn't review that complaints were raised by the head of the unit?
  F: We interviewed Mr Yousef and we didn't hear that complaint....I'll have to check.
  D: Is it true that Mr Yousef won an award for his intelligence work, got excellent performance reviews? You interviewed him, but you don't remember what you asked him and whether or not he raised concerns w/his superiors. Who did he raise his concerns with?
  F: We interviewed him. We did not find that he put a stop to the exigent letters. FBI is looking at who, when and how. We were not looking at individuals' actions.

  by BR Janet on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:19:15 AM PDT

•  Issa raise the Peter Principle !

  He should know.

  by murphy on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:20:27 AM PDT

  •  Bwaaaahaaaa!

    Yes, I listened to him yesterday on Waxman's committee hearing and he was an idiot.  At least today he is on the right side of the issue rather than trying to make the FBI look like it is being abused by the damned Democrats.

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:22:58 AM PDT

•  Issa bringing up a clear

  double standard about pursuit of criminal charges when law enforcement agencies are the ones breaking the damned law.

  Says the FBI should be ashamed of itself. Doubts the reauthorization of PATRIOT Act.

  by Kimberley on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:25:07 AM PDT

•  Ick..Darrell Issa (R-Ca): Up & Out Policy a Peter

  Principle mechanism. Blah, blah, blah. Having said that(????),

  I: If private citizen did this, wouldn't they be arrested?
  F: Depends.
  I: If there's a pattern...
  F: If there's an intent....We found no evidence of criminal conduct.
  I: It piled up but you're saying it's not criminal.
  F: You have to look at individual cases.
  I: There been no prosecutions?
  F: There's ongoing review. We just did an audit.
  I: [Heart attack....] I join with the chairman and many members across the aisle that we give you the ability and am concerned. We stretched what we could give to give you the tools, and it's clear that you abused that trust.

  by BR Janet on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:25:08 AM PDT

•  Keith Ellison up!

  by gchaucer2 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:26:03 AM PDT

•  Well, that's just super

  According to IG, "inadvertent" criminality isn't worthy of penalty or discipline.

  For fuck's sake.

  by Kimberley on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:29:32 AM PDT

  •  Remember that the next

    time you inadvertently don't pay your taxes.

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:30:47 AM PDT

    •  or get a bj.... nt

      by murphy on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:32:45 AM PDT

  •  Makes a person just want to call the local

    police and get them arrested yourself - if we only knew who these offenders were...

    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 10:41:26 AM PDT

•  C-Span 3

  has been saying on its website that Cs3 was doing something about the NH Primary the whole time this hearing has been on that channel !

  I'm just sayin'

  by murphy on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:31:59 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, the website had it labelled wrong too

    by BR Janet on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:33:26 AM PDT

  •  I got through

    to RealPlayer from C-Span's online site and it said the hearing was on both C-span and C-span3.  Was led to C-span3 thanks to bumblebums post.

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:36:05 AM PDT

  •  Psy-ops...

    but seriously - when I clicked in at the begining it was labeled with some other event - not the one you list - but it wasn't labeled with the hearing we watched.

    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 10:40:13 AM PDT

•  Keith Ellison (D-Mn): What's the purpose of

  exigent letters

  F: They shouldn't use them.
  E: That should be a change in statute.
  F: There is a statute. They shouldn't combine it with an NSL. Statute wasn't followed.
  E: What sanctions do you think should be applied?
  F: FBI should look at the individuals involved and assessed. I don't think they should be just because there was an inadvertent misuse of the statute that there should be misconduct.
  E: The problem is that the use of NSLs lack transparency by their nature. One recommendation was you made was use of greater control files.
  F: This is a training problem, supervision problem etc.
  E: Ms. Caproni, do you have the staff to make this program work properly?
  C: I could always use more resources. We're going to get more staff and more analytic help. But  yes.
  E: If you had the resources, why didn't use them before?
  C: This report revealed what we didn't know. We're going to make changes. This is important to us to regain the confidence of the American people and this committee.
  E: Mr. Fine, one of the Pat Act changes allowed others to issue these letters? Should that be rescinded?
  F: That power should be controlled and overseen.

  by BR Janet on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:32:30 AM PDT

•  Lundgren up

  Caproni doesn't supervise the people who have been screwing up.

  She just gives legal advice, they don't report to her, she doesn't rate them. If they don't call for advice, she doesn't talk to them.

  by murphy on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:41:14 AM PDT

•  Bottom line of the hearing

  Be afraid, be very afraid.

  by gchaucer2 on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:43:13 AM PDT

  •  No kidding.

    Incredible.

    by Kimberley on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:46:45 AM PDT

•  Conyers thanks everybody

  and winds things up. Five legislative days for members of committee to submit questions to the witnesses.

  ACLU statement will be included in the record, something from NY Times, and other docs which will be available doubtless on committee website.

  The record will be open for 5 more days for statements to be added.

  That's all folks !

  Thanks for the great transcribing by BR Janet !

  by murphy on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:44:51 AM PDT

•  Well this has been

  a thoroughly disturbing hearing.

  I'm incredibly pissed about the rampant abuses and the knowledge that no person so violated will ever know, let alone be able to verify that records improperly obtained about them will be destroyed.

  Thank you all for hanging in there and doing great work on this live thread.

  by Kimberley on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:45:44 AM PDT

  •  Agree with Kimberly