[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 88 (Tuesday, June 12, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3931-S3945]
National Security
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, Senator Graham and I know there are others
who would like to come to the floor on the issue of the almost
unprecedented release of information which directly affects our
national security--in fact, the most important programs in which we are
engaged, including the use of drones and our counterterrorism
activities, and, of course, the highly classified cyber attacks that
have been made on the Iranians in order to prevent them from achieving
their goal of building nuclear weapons.
I can't think of any time that I have seen such breaches of ongoing
national security programs as has been the case here. The damage to our
national security has been articulated by many both inside and outside
of the administration, including the most damaging that we have seen.
Our Director of National Intelligence said that it is the worst he has
seen in his 30 years of service in the area of intelligence. All of the
[[Page S3940]]
ranking and chair members of the Intelligence Committee, Armed Services
Committee, Foreign Relations Committee, and Homeland Security Committee
have described in the strongest terms what damage has been done by
these ``leaks.''
Among the sources that the authors of these publications list are
``administration officials'' and ``senior officials''; ``senior aides''
to the President; ``members of the President's national security team
who were in the [White House Situation Room] during key discussions'';
an official ``who requested anonymity to speak about what is still a
classified program''--I am quoting all of these from the public cases;
``current . . . American officials . . . [who would not] allow their
names to be used because the effort remains highly classified, and
parts of it continue to this day''; several sources who would be
``fired'' for what they divulged--presumably because what they divulged
was classified or otherwise very sensitive.
One author notes:
[O]ver the course of 2009, more and more people inside the
Obama White House were being `read into' a [particular
secret, compartmentalized] cyber program [previously known
only by an extremely tight group of top intelligence,
military and White House officials], even those not directly
involved. As the reports from the latest iteration of the bug
arrived--
Talking about the cyber attack on Iran--
meetings were held to assess what kind of damage had been
done, and the room got more and more crowded.
Some of the sources in these publications specifically refused to be
identified because what they were talking about related to classified
programs or ongoing programs. One of the authors specifically observed
that some of his sources would be horrified if their identities were
revealed.
As always with this leaking, which goes on in this town, although not
at the level I have ever seen, I think we need to ask ourselves first
who benefits--certainly not our national security or our military
intelligence professionals or our partners abroad who are more exposed
as a result of these leaks. I think to answer the question of who
benefits, we have to look at the totality of circumstances. In this
case, the publications came out closely together in time. They involved
the participation, according to those publications, of administration
officials. The overall impression left by these publications is very
favorable to the President of the United States.
So here we are with a very serious breach of national security--and
in the view of some, the most serious in recent history--and it clearly
cries out for the appointment of a special counsel.
I would remind my colleagues and my friend from South Carolina will
remind our colleagues that when the Valerie Plame investigation was
going on, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle argued
strenuously for the appointment of a special counsel at that time.
Later on, I will read some of their direct quotes.
It is obviously one of the highest breaches of security this country
has ever seen because of ongoing operations that are taking place. By
the way, our friends and allies, especially the Israelis, who have been
compromised on the Stuxnet operation, the virus in the Iranian nuclear
program, of course, feel betrayed.
Now, can I finally say that I understand our colleague and
chairperson of the Intelligence Committee is going to come over to
object to our motion for the appointment of a special counsel. It is
the same special counsel who was appointed at other times in our
history, and ahead of her appearance after the statements she made
about how serious these breaches of intelligence were. It is a bit
puzzling why she should object to the appointment of a special counsel.
I ask my colleague from South Carolina--to place two outstanding
individuals and prosecutors to investigate still places them under the
authority of the Attorney General of the United States. The Attorney
General of the United States is under severe scrutiny in the House of
Representatives. The Attorney General of the United States may be cited
for contempt of Congress over the Fast and Furious gunrunning-to-Mexico
issue which also resulted, by the way, in the death of a brave young
Border Patrolman, Brian Terry, in my own State, who was killed by one
of these weapons. That is how serious it is.
I would think Mr. Holder, for his own benefit, would seek the
appointment of a special counsel, and I ask that of my friend from
South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. I think it not only would serve Mr. Holder well, but
certainly the country well.
We are setting the precedent that if we do not appoint a special
counsel--and I don't know these two U.S. attorneys at all. I am sure
they are fine men. But the special counsel provisions that are
available to the Attorney General need to be embraced because it
creates an impression and, quite frankly, a legal infrastructure to put
the special counsel above common politics. The precedent we are about
to set in the Senate if we vote down this resolution is, in this case,
we don't need to assure the public that we don't have to worry, the
person involved is not going to be interfered with; that in this case
we don't need the special counsel, and there is no need for it.
Well, to my colleagues on the other side, how many of them said we
needed a special counsel--Peter Fitzgerald--who was not in the
jurisdiction--Illinois wasn't the subject matter of the Valerie Plame
leaks. It happened in Washington. When Peter Fitzgerald was chosen as a
special counsel, the country said that is a good choice, chosen under
the special counsel provisions, which are designed to avoid a conflict
of interest.
What is the problem? For us to say we don't need one here is a
precedent that will haunt the country and this body and future White
Houses in a way that I think is very disturbing, I say to the Senator
from Arizona, because if we needed one for Valerie Plame--allegations
of outing a CIA agent--and if we needed one for Jack Abramoff, a
lobbyist who had infiltrated the highest levels of the government, why
would we need one here? Is this less serious?
The allegations we are talking about are breathtaking. Go read Mr.
Sanger's book as he describes Operation Olympic Games. It reads like a
novel about how the administration, trying to avoid an Israeli strike
against the Iranian nuclear program, worked with the Israelis to create
a cyber attack on the Iranian nuclear program, and how successful it
was. It literally reads like a novel.
What about the situation regarding the Underwear Bomber case, a plot
that was thwarted by a double agent. One could read every detail about
the plot and how dangerous it was and how successful we were in
stopping it from coming about. Then, how we got bin Laden and sharing
information with a movie producer, but telling the world about the
Pakistani doctor and how we used him to track down bin Laden.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, could I add revealing the name of Seal
Team 6.
Mr. GRAHAM. That takes us to the bin Laden information. In the book
there is a scenario where the Secretary of Defense went to the National
Security Adviser, Thomas Donilon, and said, ``I have a new
communication strategy for you regarding the bin Laden raid: Shut the F
up.''
But the drone program, a blow-by-blow description of how the
President handpicks who gets killed and who doesn't.
This is breathtaking. Certainly, it is on par with Abramoff and
Plame, I think, the biggest national security compromise in
generations. For our friends on the other side to say we don't need a
special counsel here, but they were the ones arguing for one in the
other two cases, sets a terrible precedent, and we are not going to let
this happen without one heck of a fight.
Senator Obama wrote a letter with a large group of colleagues urging
the Bush administration to appoint a special counsel and to have an
independent congressional investigation on top of that of the Valerie
Plame CIA leak case. He also joined in a letter with his Democratic
colleagues urging the Bush administration to appoint a special counsel
in the Jack Abramoff case because the allegations were that Mr.
Abramoff had access to the highest levels of government and that
extraordinary circumstances existed.
[[Page S3941]]
What are we talking about here? We are talking about leaks of
national security done in a 45-day period that paint this President as
a strong, decisive national security leader. The book questions--not
just the articles--is there any reason to believe this may go to the
White House? Look what happened with the Scooter Libby prosecution in
the Valerie Plame case. The Chief of Staff of the Vice President of the
United States eventually was held accountable for his involvement.
Is there any reason to believe that senior White House people may be
involved in these leaks? Just read the articles. But this is a book
review by Mr. Thomas Riggs of the book in question by Mr. Sanger.
Throughout, Mr. Sanger clearly has enjoyed great access to senior White
House officials, most notably to Thomas Donilon, the National Security
Adviser. Mr. Donilon, in fact, is the hero of the book as well as the
commentator of record on events. It goes on and on in talking about how
these programs were so successful.
Here is the problem. In the House, when a program is not so
successful, such as Fast and Furious, that is embarrassing to the
administration. One can't literally get information with a subpoena. So
we have an administration and an Attorney General's Office that is
about to be held in contempt by the House for not releasing information
about the Fast and Furious Program that was embarrassing. When we have
programs that were successful and make the White House look strong and
the President look strong, we can read about it in the paper.
All we are asking for is what Senator Obama and Senator Biden asked
for in previous national security events involving corruption of the
government: a special counsel to be appointed, with the powers of a
special counsel, somebody we can all buy into. If we set a precedent of
not doing it here, I think it will be a huge mistake.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, wouldn't my colleague agree that one of
the most revealing aspects of this entire issue from program to program
that leads to enormous suspicion would be that probably the most
respected Member of the President's Cabinet who stayed over from the
Bush administration, Secretary Gates, was so agitated by the revelation
of information about the bin Laden raid that he came over to the White
House and said to the President's National Security Adviser that he had
a ``new communication strategy.'' He responded by saying to the
National Security Adviser, ``Shut the F up.'' That is a devastating
comment and leads one to the suspicion that things were done improperly
in the revelation of these most important and sensitive programs that
were being carried out and are ongoing to this day.
So I ask my colleague, what is the difference between the Biden-
Schumer-Levin-Daschle letter to President Bush in 2003 where they
called for the appointment of a special counsel--Vice President Biden--
and how the White House should handle Libby? I think they should
appoint a special prosecutor. In 2003, then-Senator Biden called for a
special counsel with 34 Senators, and then-Senator Obama requested the
appointment of a special counsel to lead the Abramoff case.
I was involved heavily initially with the Abramoff case, and I can
tell my colleagues even though there was severe corruption, there was
certainly nothing as far as a breach of national security is concerned.
Yet they needed a special counsel, according to then-Senator Obama, to
investigate Abramoff but not this serious consequence.
So I guess my unanimous consent request for this resolution will be
objected to. But the fact is, we need a special counsel because the
American people need to know. I do not believe anyone who has to report
to the Attorney General of the United States would be considered as
objective.
I ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, if I may, I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the Record the letters written by Senator Obama and Senator
Biden asking for a special counsel.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Obama, et al. Letter on Abramoff
February 2, 2006.
Hon. Alberto Gonzales,
U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington, DC.
Dear General Gonzales: We write to join the request made
last week that you appoint a special counsel to continue the
investigation and the prosecution of those involved in the
corruption scandal surrounding Jack Abramoff's dealings with
the federal government. The Department's response to the
press regarding that request did not address the fundamental
issue of a conflict of interest or the other serious issues
raised by the letter.
This scandal has shaken the public's confidence in our
government and all involved must be pursued vigorously. A
special counsel will ensure the public's confidence in the
investigation and prosecution and help to restore its faith
in our government. FBI officials have said the Abramoff
investigation ``involves systemic corruption within the
highest levels of government.'' Such an assertion indicates
extraordinary circumstances and it is in the public interest
that you act under your existing statutory authority to
appoint a special counsel.
Mr. Abramoff's significant ties to Republican leadership in
Congress, and allegations of improper activity involving
Administration officials, reaching, possibly, into the White
House itself, pose a possible conflict of interest for the
Department and thus further warrant the appointment of a
special counsel. Recent news reports confirm that Mr.
Abramoff met the President on several occasions and during
some of those meetings, Mr. Abramoff and his family had their
photos taken with the President. Mr. Abramoff also organized
at least one and possibly several meetings with White House
staff for his clients. These meetings with the President and
White House staff occurred while you were serving as White
House Counsel. Given the possible ties between Mr. Abramoff
and senior government officials, we believe the appointment
of a special counsel is not only justified, but necessary.
The Public Integrity section of the Department has thus far
pursued this case appropriately, and we applaud its pursuit
of Mr. Abramoff and his colleagues. As the investigation
turns to government officials and their staffs, both in the
Executive and Legislative branches, we have no doubt that if
the investigation is left to the career prosecutors in that
section, the case would reach its appropriate conclusion.
Unfortunately, the highly political context of the
allegations and charges may lead some to surmise that
political influence may compromise the investigation. This
concern is heightened by allegations that Frederick Black,
the former acting U.S. Attorney for Guam and the Northern
Marianas, was replaced, perhaps improperly, as a result of
his investigation of Mr. Abramoff.
Appointment of a Special Counsel at this point in time is
made even more appropriate by the White House's recent
nomination of Noel Hillman, the career prosecutor in charge
of the case, to a federal judgeship. As a new prosecutor will
need to take over the case, we ask you to appoint an outside
Special Counsel so the public can be assured no political
considerations will be a part of this investigation or the
subsequent prosecutions.
Because this investigation is vital to restoring the
public's faith in its government, any appearance of bias,
special favor or political consideration would be a further
blow to our democracy. Appointment of a special counsel would
ensure that the investigation and prosecution will proceed
without fear or favor and provide the public with full
confidence that no one in this country is above the law.
We know you share our commitment to restoring the public's
trust in our government. We hope you will take the only
appropriate action here and appoint a special counsel so we
can ensure that justice is done while preserving the
integrity of the Justice Department.
We look forward to hearing from you on this matter soon.
Harry Reid; Charles E. Schumer; Ken Salazar; Barack
Obama; Dick Durbin; Robert Menendez; Ted Kennedy;
Daniel K. Inouye; Blanche L. Lincoln; Kent Conrad; Jack
Reed; Evan Bayh; Carl Levin; Joe Lieberman; Debbie
Stabenow; John F. Kerry; Bill Nelson; Frank R.
Lautenberg; Barbara Mikulski; Dianne Feinstein; Patty
Murray; Daniel K. Akaka; Maria Cantwell; Hillary Rodham
Clinton; Ron Wyden; Barbara Boxer; Jim Jeffords; Max
Baucus; Joe Biden; Chris Dodd; Patrick Leahy; Russell
D. Feingold; Tim Johnson; Paul Sarbanes; Tom Carper;
Jeff Bingaman.
____
Biden, Daschle, Schumer, Levin Letter to Bush
United States Senate,
Washington, DC, October 9, 2003.
The President,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: We write to express our continuing
concerns regarding the manner in which your Administration is
conducting the investigation into the apparently criminal
leaking of a covert CIA operative's identity. You have
personally pledged the White House's full cooperation in this
investigation and you have stated
[[Page S3942]]
your desire to see any culprits identified and prosecuted,
but the Administration's actions are inconsistent with your
words.
Already, just 14 days into this investigation, there have
been at least five serious missteps.
First, although the Department of Justice commenced its
investigation on Friday, September 26, the Justice Department
did not ask the White House to order employees to preserve
all relevant evidence until Monday, September 29. Every
former prosecutor with whom we have spoken has said that the
first step in such an investigation would be to ensure all
potentially relevant evidence is preserved, yet the Justice
Department waited four days before making a formal request
for such documents.
Second, when the Justice Department finally asked the White
House to order employees to preserve documents, White House
Counsel Alberto Gonzales asked for permission to delay
transmitting the order to preserve evidence until morning.
That request for delay was granted. Again, every former
prosecutor with whom we have spoken has said that such a
delay is a significant departure from standard practice.
Third, instead of immediately seeking the preservation of
evidence at the two other Executive Branch departments from
which the leak might have originated, i.e., State and
Defense, such a request was not made until Thursday, October
1. Perhaps even more troubling, the request to State and
Defense Department employees to preserve evidence was
telegraphed in advance not only by the request to White House
employees earlier in the week, but also by the October 1st
Wall Street Journal report that such a request was
``forthcoming'' from the Justice Department. It is, of
course, extremely unusual to tip off potential witnesses in
this manner that a preservation request is forthcoming.
Fourth, on October 7, White House spokesperson Scott
McClellan stated that he had personally determined three
White House officials, Karl Rove, Lewis Libby and Elliot
Abrams, had not disclosed classified information. According
to press reports, Mr. McClellan said, ``I've spoken with each
of them individually. They were not involved in leaking
classified information, nor did they condone it.'' Clearly, a
media spokesperson does not have the legal expertise to be
questioning possible suspects or evaluating or reaching
conclusions about the legality of their conduct. In addition,
by making this statement, the White House has now put the
Justice Department in the position of having to determine not
only what happened, but also whether to contradict the
publicly stated position of the White House.
Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, the investigation
continues to be directly overseen by Attorney General
Ashcroft who has well-documented conflicts of interest in any
investigation of the White House. Mr. Ashcroft's personal
relationship and political alliance with you, his close
professional relationships with Karl Rove and Mr. Gonzales,
and his seat on the National Security Council all tie him so
tightly to this White House that the results may not be
trusted by the American people. Even if the case is being
handled in the first instance by professional career
prosecutors, the integrity of the inquiry may be called into
question if individuals with a vested interest in protecting
the White House are still involved in any matter related to
the investigation.
We are at risk of seeing this investigation so compromised
that those responsible for this national security breach will
never be identified and prosecuted. Public confidence in the
integrity of this investigation would be substantially
bolstered by the appointment of a special counsel. The
criteria in the Justice Department regulations that created
the authority to appoint a Special Counsel have been met in
the current case. Namely, there is a criminal investigation
that presents a conflict of interest for the Justice
Department, and it would be in the public interest to appoint
an outside special counsel to assume responsibility for the
matter. In the meantime, we urge you to ask Attorney General
Ashcroft to recuse himself from this investigation and do
everything within your power to ensure the remainder of this
investigation is conducted in a way that engenders public
confidence.
Sincerely,
Tom Daschle.
Joseph R. Biden.
Carl Levin.
Charles E. Schumer.
Mr. GRAHAM. I guess the difference is we are supposed to trust
Democratic administrations, and we can't trust Republican
administrations. I guess that is the difference. It is the only
difference I can glean here. Certainly, the subject matter in question
is as equal to or more serious in terms of how it has damaged the
Nation and in terms of the structure of a special counsel. If we
thought it was necessary to make sure the Abramoff investigation could
lead to high-level Republicans, which it did, and if we thought the
Valerie Plame case needed a special counsel to go into the White House
because that is where it went, why would we not believe it would help
the country as a whole to appoint somebody we can all buy into in this
case, give them the powers of a special counsel? That is what was urged
before when the shoe was on the other foot.
This is a very big deal. We are talking about serious criminal
activity. Apparently, the suspects are at the highest level of
government, and I believe it was done for political purposes. To not
appoint a special counsel would set a precedent that I think is
damaging for the country and is absolutely unimaginable in terms of how
someone could differentiate this case from the other two we have talked
about.
To my Democratic colleagues: Don't go down this road. Don't be part
of setting a precedent of not appointing a special counsel for some of
the most serious national security leaks in recent memory--maybe in the
history of the country--while at the same time most of my Democratic
colleagues were on the record asking about a special counsel about
everything and anything that happened in the Bush administration. This
is not good for the country.
Mr. McCAIN. I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues.
Unanimous Consent Request
As in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now proceed to the consideration of a resolution regarding the recent
intelligence leaks, which means the appointment of a special counsel,
which is at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be
agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be
laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have served on the Intelligence Committee
for 11 years now, and I have seen during that time plenty of leaks. I
have tried with every bit of my energy to demonstrate how serious an
issue this leaking matter is. In fact, I teamed up with Senator Bond--
our colleagues remember Senator Bond, of course--and I sponsored
legislation to double--double--the criminal penalty for those who leak,
for those who expose covert agents. So I don't take a back seat to
anybody in terms of recognizing the seriousness of leaks and ensuring
that they are dealt with in an extremely prompt and responsive fashion.
What is at issue here is whether we are going to give an opportunity
for U.S. attorneys--professionals in their fields--to handle this
particular inquiry. I see no evidence that the way the U.S. attorneys
are handling this investigation at this time is not with the highest
standards of professionalism.
I have disagreed with the Attorney General on plenty of issues. My
colleagues know I have been particularly in disagreement with the
Attorney General on this issue of secret law. I think there are real
questions about whether laws that are written in the Congress are
actually the laws that govern their interpretations. So I have
disagreed with the Attorney General on plenty of matters. I think I
have demonstrated by writing that law with Senator Bond that I want to
be as tough as possible on leakers.
But I would now have to object to the request from our colleague from
Arizona simply because I believe it is premature. For that reason, Mr.
President, I object to the request from the Senator from Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
[...]
[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 88 (Tuesday, June 12, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3945-S3949]
National Security Leaks
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the issue of
national security leaks.
A few weeks ago, the world learned that U.S. intelligence agencies
and partners disrupted an al-Qaida plot to blow up a civilian aircraft.
We are all very familiar with the success of this effort, and we
applaud those involved in preventing a truly horrific terrorist attack.
However, my concern today, and has been since that time, is that the
public has become too familiar with this successful operation.
Specifically, due to an intelligence leak, the world learned of highly
sensitive information, sources, and methods that enabled the United
States and its allies to prevent al-Qaida from striking again.
This irresponsible leak jeopardizes future operations and future
cooperation with valuable sources and intelligence partners overseas.
The release of this information--intentional or not--puts American
lives at risk as well as the lives of those who helped us in this
operation.
Unfortunately, this is not the only recent leak to occur. As a member
of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I am deeply concerned
about a troubling rash of leaks exposing classified intelligence
information that has come out in the last several weeks. This paints a
disturbing picture of this administration's judgment when it comes to
national security.
There is a questionable collaboration with Hollywood, whereby the
Obama
[[Page S3947]]
administration decided to give unprecedented access to filmmakers
producing a movie on the bin Laden raid--including the confidential
identity of one of our Nation's most elite warriors. Discussions with
reporters in the aftermath of the raid also may have revealed the
involvement of a Pakistani doctor, who was sentenced to 33 years in
prison for treason after playing a critical role in the hunt for bin
Laden.
The pages of our newspapers have highly classified information
publicized pertaining to intelligence operations in Yemen and Iran--
currently, the two most concerning foreign policy challenges this
Nation faces. This is in addition to the frequency with which top
administration officials now openly discuss the once highly classified
execution of drone strikes. All too frequently we read in these
publications that ``highly placed administration officials'' are the
source of confirmation of previously classified information.
Sadly, these incidents are not the first time this Nation's secrets
have spilled onto the streets or in the book stores. The problem stems
in part from the media's insatiable desire for information that makes
intelligence operations look a lot like something out of a Hollywood
script. This media hunger is fed by inexcusable contributions from
current and former government officials.
Mr. President, I want to repeat that last statement. This media
hunger to publish classified information comes from the inexcusable
contributions of current and former government officials. We now know
that investigations by the FBI, CIA, and now two prosecutors are
underway, but more must be done to prevent intelligence disclosures
from occurring in the first place.
The question of whether the White House purposely leaked classified
information, as the President refutes, is not my main point. Whether it
was intentional has little bearing on the results. Highly classified
information still got out, and it appears to have been enabled by
interviews with senior administration officials.
At this time, I take the President at his word that the White House
did not purposely leak classified information. But what about his
administration leaking it accidentally or what about mistakenly or--and
this is perhaps the best adjective that might apply--what about
stupidly? There remain a lot of unanswered questions about the White
House's judgment and whether the actions by this administration,
intentional or not, enabled highly sensitive information to become
public.
The House and Senate Intelligence Committees are working together in
a nonpartisan fashion--let me emphasize that we are working together in
a nonpartisan fashion--to address this issue. As a member of the
committee, I am working with my colleagues to evaluate a range of
reforms to reduce or hopefully eliminate the opportunity for future
leaks. I wish to commend Chairman Feinstein and Vice Chairman Chambliss
for their efforts and genuine interest in moving forward with this, and
I thank them for their leadership on this matter. Our committee,
working across the Capitol with the House Intelligence Committee, will
bring forward recommendations, including legislation, to address this
growing problem.
As the Department of Justice conducts its investigations, we cannot
lose sight of important questions that must be answered, such as but
not limited to the following:
Question No. 1: Why did the White House hold a conference call on May
7 with a collection of former national security officials, some of whom
are talking heads on network television, to discuss the confidential
operation to disrupt the al-Qaida bomb plot?
Question No. 2: Why is the White House cooperating so candidly with
Hollywood filmmakers on a movie about the Osama bin Laden raid, one of
the most highly secretive operations in the history of this country?
While we don't know the date of the public release of this Hollywood
production, we can be sure that any release prior to the November
Presidential election will fuel a firestorm of accusations of political
motives.
Question No. 3: Why would the confidential identity of elite U.S.
military personnel be released to Hollywood filmmakers?
Question No. 4: Why would administration officials even talk to
reporters or authors writing books or articles about incredibly
sensitive operations?
Question No. 5: Did any administration officials--in the White House
or not--authorize the disclosure of classified information?
These are just some of the key questions that must be asked in this
investigation. There also remain several questions surrounding the
current investigations. The appointment of two prosecutors to lead
criminal investigations into the recent leaks is a step forward, but
the scope remains unclear, as well as the question of whether we should
insist on a special counsel given the current concerns about the
credibility of the Justice Department.
Will these investigations focus just on the Yemen and Iran issue or
will the leaks involving drone strikes and other leaks that have
occurred in the past months also be a target of the investigation?
Will White House officials be interviewed as part of this
investigation? Which officials will or will not be available to take
part in the investigation? Will those who are former or no longer a
part of the administration or the Federal Government or those outside
it, including those reporters in question, be a part of this
investigation?
Will e-mails or phone calls of administration officials be analyzed
to identify who spoke with the reporters and authors in question and
when?
Again, whether these officials are intentionally leaking classified
information is not the main point. If they put themselves in situations
where they are discussing or confirming classified information, they
must also be held accountable. Public pressure is required to shape
these investigations and to ensure all our questions about these events
are answered, which is why I am speaking here today.
Every day, we have men and women in uniform serving around the globe
to protect and defend this great country, and every day we have
intelligence professionals and national security officers working
behind the scenes with allies and potential informants to prevent
attacks on our country. These leaks undermine all that hard work and
all those countless sacrifices. Additionally, it risks lives and the
success of future operations. Not only must we plug these damaging and
irresponsible leaks, we also must work to do all we can to eliminate or
greatly reduce the opportunity for them to occur in the future.
Criminal prosecution and congressional action is not the only
solution. We also need public accountability. Administration officials
continue to speak off the record with reporters and authors about
classified information even after these recent disclosures. It is a
practice that contributes to unwise and harmful consequences.
Purposely or accidentally, loose lips can bring about disastrous
results. Perhaps the best advice is the saying: ``You don't have to
explain what you don't say'' or maybe it is even simpler than that.
Maybe the best advice for those who are privy to confidential
information is what former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, and I
paraphrase: Just shut the heck up.
I yield the floor.
[...]
[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 88 (Tuesday, June 12, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3949-S3964]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this morning during a hearing in front of
the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Attorney General appeared, and in
an exchange I had with him, it culminated with my call upon him to
resign his position as Attorney General. That is a very serious matter.
I wish to take a few minutes to explain why, after long deliberation, I
have come to this conclusion. I do believe it is the right decision and
it is long overdue.
I served as an attorney general of my State--an elected attorney
general, not an appointed attorney general. I believe strongly the
American people deserve a chief law enforcement officer who will be
independent of political influence, who will be accountable to the law,
and who will be transparent, particularly in his dealings with the
Congress. Unfortunately, Attorney General Holder has failed on all of
these counts.
At his confirmation hearing in 2009 in front of the Judiciary
Committee, Eric Holder said his Department of Justice would ``serve
justice, not the fleeting interests of any political party.'' He also
said he would seek to achieve a ``full partnership with this Committee
and with Congress as a whole.'' I wish he had kept his word.
Regrettably, he has not.
In the past few weeks I have joined my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle in our shock at news articles that have disclosed some of the
most sensitive classified programs of our national security apparatus.
These were reportedly covert operations aimed at thwarting terrorist
attacks as well as defeating Iran's nuclear aspirations. The leaks,
according to the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator
Feinstein--I am paraphrasing here, but I believe she says these are
some of the worst she has seen in her tenure on the Intelligence
Committee. Others have suggested these are some of the most damaging
potential leaks
[[Page S3955]]
in our history--certainly recent history.
According to the very stories that reported these programs, the
sources come from the highest reaches of the executive branch of our
government; namely, the White House. As Democrats and Republicans have
both made clear, the unauthorized release of classified information is
a crime--it is a crime--because it threatens our national security and
puts the lives of those who are sworn to defend our Nation in jeopardy.
As many have hastened to point out, it also jeopardizes the cooperation
of our allies. Who would be motivated to be a source of classified,
highly sensitive information that would be provided to our intelligence
community if they knew they were likely to be on the front page of the
Washington Post or The New York Times?
The news articles containing the leaked information paint the
President in a flattering light. The concern is that they appear just
as his reelection campaign is getting into full swing.
Let me be clear. These facts raise legitimate concerns about the
motives behind what everyone agrees is criminal conduct. That is why it
is so important to have an investigation of these leaks that is
independent, nonpartisan, and thorough. Unfortunately, Attorney General
Holder has demonstrated, at least to me, that he is incapable of
delivering that kind of investigation.
Just hours before Senator McCain and Senator Chambliss called for a
special prosecutor or, in the parlance of the statute now, a special
counsel, Holder's Deputy Attorney General Jim Cole told me he didn't
think an independent investigation was warranted because the leaks
didn't come from the White House or this administration. Amazingly, he
hadn't, apparently, done an investigation before he reached that
conclusion. Attorney General Holder apparently takes the same view. He
has already decided who is not to blame, and he has excluded the
administration and the White House and the reported sources of the
information--although not named, they were named by category--he has
already written them off and suggested that they could not possibly be
the source of any of these leaks.
I looked into the special counsel law which says that a special
prosecutor is called for when an investigation would present a conflict
of interest for the Justice Department.
I concede the Attorney General has a very tough job. He is a member
of the President's Cabinet, but he has a special and independent
responsibility as the chief law enforcement officer of the country and
he can't be confused about those roles. There have been some reports
that some of these leaks may have even emanated from the Justice
Department itself. In fact, this morning, the Attorney General
acknowledged that some of the Department of Justice's National Security
Division had recused itself from an ongoing leak investigation. We
don't know the details of that, but he did concede that his own
National Security Division at the Department of Justice--some members
of that division had already recused themselves.
These leaks in the New York Times--I am talking specifically about
the drone program and about the cyber attacks on Iran's nuclear
capability--quoted senior administration officials and quoted members
of the President's national security team.
Now, that is not a large number of people to question or to identify.
In fact, that is the very source given in these stories that reported
the leaks--``senior administration officials'' and ``members of the
president's national security team.''
This is the same story that said that on the President's so-called
kill list that he personally goes over with his national security team
identifying targets of drone attacks, that also David Axelrod, his
chief political adviser, sat in, apparently, on at least one, maybe
more meetings.
But instead of an independent prosecutor, Attorney General Holder has
chosen to appoint two U.S. attorneys who are in his chain of command
and who will report to him and who are directly under his personal
supervision. One of those is U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia
Ronald Machen, who volunteered on the Obama campaign in 2008 and who
has given thousands of dollars to the President's political campaigns
over the years. I do not have any issue with that. That is his right as
an American citizen. But it does raise legitimate questions about his
ability to be independent and conduct the kind of investigation I am
talking about. Oh, by the way, Mr. Machen also got his start as a
Federal prosecutor when he went to work for U.S. Attorney General Eric
Holder. That is not an independent investigation--that is the point--
and it helps to demonstrate why it is that Attorney General Holder has
a conflict of interest himself that requires the appointment of a
special counsel, not the appointment of two U.S. attorneys who are
directly responsible to him and through whom he can control the flow of
information to Congress and others.
Reasonable people will wonder, where does the Attorney General's
loyalty lie--to the President of the United States to try to help him
get reelected or his duty to enforce the laws of the U.S. Government?
This would be troubling enough to me if this were an isolated event,
but what has brought me to this serious conclusion that Attorney
General Holder should, in fact, resign goes back much further because
this is only a symptom of the Department of Justice's complete lack of
accountability, independence, and transparency.
Take the tragedy known as Operation Fast and Furious. And we know,
under Attorney General Holder's watch, the Department of Justice
ordered the transfer of more than 2,000 high-caliber firearms to some
of the most dangerous drug cartels operating in Mexico. The Attorney
General disingenuously tried to confuse this with an operation known as
Wide Receiver, which was done in consultation with the Mexican
Government and where the point was not to let the guns walk without
surveillance but to track them. It was ended when it became very
difficult to track them and thus gave rise to the operation known as
Fast and Furious, which had an altogether different mode of operation.
Instead of tracking these firearms and arresting cartel agents
trafficking them, under Operation Fast and Furious, Department of
Justice officials ordered law enforcement agents to break off direct
surveillance and to allow these guns to ``walk''--apparently under the
mistaken belief that they could somehow find them at a later time and,
through alternative means of surveillance, discover the nature of the
organization and the distribution of these guns and help them bring
down some of these cartels. Unfortunately, and quite predictably, the
weapons from this flawed operation have been used to commit numerous
violent crimes on both sides of the southern border, including the
murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in December 2010.
Far from being apologetic, Attorney General Holder's conduct during
the congressional investigation into this flawed program has been
nothing short of misleading and obstructionist, having complete
disregard for Congress's independent constitutional responsibility to
conduct oversight and investigations of the Department of Justice and
other Federal agencies.
For example, Attorney General Holder has stonewalled the
investigation, turning over less than 10 percent of the documents
subpoenaed by a congressional committee.
Attorney General Holder's Department misled Congress in a February
2011 letter where they claimed that Operation Fast and Furious did not
even exist--there was no program to allow guns to walk into the hands
of the cartels and to lose direct surveillance of them. We now know
that is false but only because Lanny Breuer, 9 months later, in
November 2011, came before the Senate Judiciary Committee and said: You
know, that letter we wrote in February 2011 saying there was not any
gun-walking program known as Fast and Furious--that was false. That was
not true.
So for all that period of time, Attorney General Holder and his
Department misled Congress by claiming falsely that Fast and Furious
did not exist.
Then, in addition, Attorney General Holder misled Representative
Issa, who has led the investigation in the House of Representatives, by
testifying that he only learned of Operation Fast
[[Page S3956]]
and Furious ``over the last few weeks.'' That was in May 2011. He said
he only learned about it in ``the last few weeks.'' Brian Terry was
murdered in December 2010, yet Eric Holder said he only learned in
``the last few weeks'' about Operation Fast and Furious, and that was
in May 2011. We now know that is false.
Attorney General Holder also misled the public at a September 2011
press conference by claiming that Operation Fast and Furious did not
reach into the upper levels of the Justice Department. We now know that
is false. I personally reviewed some of the wiretaps that were produced
as a result of a whistleblower through the House investigating
committee, and it makes clear that the rationale for securing a wiretap
was because they did not expect to be able to keep track of the weapons
directly by direct surveillance, describing, in essence, the tactics of
Operation Fast and Furious. Those required the authorization of high-
level Department of Justice employees, including those in Lanny
Breuer's office. Again, Attorney General Holder and his staff misled
the public, claiming Operation Fast and Furious was unknown at the
upper reaches of the Justice Department.
Attorney General Holder misled the Senate Judiciary Committee last
November by testifying that he did not believe that these wiretap
applications approved by senior deputies included detailed discussion
of gunwalking. As I said, we know that to be false. I read them with my
own eyes yesterday, although they remain under seal. And Attorney
General Holder has refused to take any step to ask the court to modify
that seal so we can then review those and compare his story with what
is revealed in the affidavits. So as long as these documents remain
under seal, we are left with the ``he said, she said'' that he could
resolve if he would agree to go to the court and ask that they be
unsealed for purposes of the congressional investigation.
Then, when there were reports of gunwalking operations in Houston,
TX, at a sports dealer known as Carter's Country, I asked Attorney
General Holder whether there were gunwalking operations in my State.
When you had a legitimate seller of firearms say: Hey, I think there is
something suspicious going on, you have people making bulk purchases of
firearms, and I am worried they may be going to the cartels or other
sources, they were told: Do not do anything about it. Let them go.
But when I asked Attorney General Holder to confirm or deny that
there was an Operation Fast and Furious look-alike or that Fast and
Furious itself was operating in my State, again, I got no reply.
I have no idea what else the Attorney General and his Department are
concealing from the American people or, more importantly, the Brian
Terry family, who deserve to know what happened and how this operation
went terribly awry.
Perhaps worst of all has been the lack of accountability, starting at
the top. In the last 16 months since Operation Fast and Furious was
uncovered, Eric Holder has not fired a single person in his Department
for supplying 2,000 high-caliber firearms to drug cartels in Mexico.
That is really astonishing. I have to ask, if no one has been held
accountable, what does it take to get fired at the Holder Justice
Department?
Attorney General Holder's litany of failure does not end there,
again, putting politics ahead of his job as the chief law enforcement
officer of the country and, indeed, putting what appears to be a
political agenda ahead of the law.
For example--another example--Attorney General Holder has targeted
commonsense voter ID legislation passed by the Texas Legislature and
the South Carolina Legislature, which the Supreme Court of the United
States has overwhelmingly upheld the constitutionality of since 2008.
So here is the Texas Legislature, the South Carolina Legislature--and
others perhaps sitting in the wings--trying to take steps to protect
the integrity of the vote of qualified voters in their State. And who
is the chief obstructionist to that goal? It is the Attorney General
and the Department of Justice. So now we find ourselves--my State,
South Carolina, and others find themselves in litigation asking the
courts to do what the Attorney General will not and acknowledge that
the Supreme Court decision in 2008 is the law of the land.
These voter identification laws are designed to require citizens to
produce a valid photo identification. If you do not have a valid photo
identification, you can get one for free. In my State, you can show up
without any ID and vote provisionally as long as you come back within a
period of time and produce one. So it is no impediment to participation
in votes. You know what. The American people are accustomed to
presenting a photo ID because every time you get on an airplane, every
time you want to buy a pack of cigarettes or a beer, you have to, if
you are of a certain age, produce a photo ID to prove you are of a
certain age. But Mr. Holder has been so outrageous as to compare these
voter ID laws to Jim Crow poll taxes--it is outrageous--a charge that
is defamatory and an insult to the people of my State and anyone with
common sense. You know what. You have to show a photo ID to get into
Eric Holder's office building in Washington, DC. Yet it is
discriminatory somehow? It discourages qualified voters from casting
their ballot? It is ridiculous. While Attorney General Holder is
blocking State efforts to prevent voter fraud, he neglects the voting
rights of the men and women in uniform who serve in our country's Armed
Forces.
In 2010--actually before that--on a bipartisan basis, we introduced
legislation and passed it overwhelmingly, something called the MOVE
Act. It is a military voting act. But after its passage, which was
designed to make it easier for troops who are deployed abroad or
civilians deployed abroad to cast a ballot in U.S. elections, the
Attorney General failed to adequately enforce this legislation, which
was designed to guarantee our Active-Duty military and their families
the right to vote. If Mr. Holder had spent as much time and effort
enforcing this law as he recently spent attempting to get convicted
felons and illegal aliens back on the voter rolls in Florida, thousands
of military voters might have gotten their ballots on time rather than
be disenfranchised in 2010.
These are not the only duly enacted laws the Attorney General has
failed to enforce in order to carry out the political agenda that
apparently he believes is more important.
The Attorney General has announced he will refuse to defend the
bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act that was signed by President Bill
Clinton, despite the fact that has been the law of the land for more
than 15 years. It is, in fact, the duty of the Department of Justice to
defend laws passed by Congress that are lawful and constitutional. Yet
he refuses to even do so, and the litany goes on.
In addition to using the Justice Department as a political arm of the
Obama campaign, he has also moved the Department in a dangerously
ideological direction in the war on terror. Attorney General Holder has
failed to grasp the most important lesson of 9/11 and the 9/11
Commission, that there is a difference between criminal law enforcement
for violating crimes and the laws of war that are destined to get
actionable intelligence and prevent attacks against the American
people, not just punish them once they have occurred, which is the
function of the criminal law.
His actions have demonstrated that he believes terrorism is a
traditional law enforcement problem warranting the same old traditional
law enforcement solutions. But they, by definition, occur after the
fact, after innocent people have been murdered, rather than designed to
prevent those attacks.
For example, Attorney General Holder attempted to hold trials for
master minds of the 9/11 attack, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in
civilian court in Manhattan. He wanted to do so in spite of the outcry
of local communities and the fact that civilian trials would give
terrorists legal protections they are not entitled to under our
Constitution and laws and which they do not deserve.
Attorney General Holder attempted to transfer terrorists from
Guantanamo Bay Cuba to prisons in the United States over the repeated
objection of local communities and the Congress.
What is more, when Federal agents detained, thankfully, the Christmas
[[Page S3957]]
Day Bomber in Chicago who was trying to blow up an airplane with a bomb
he had smuggled and that was undetectable to law enforcement agents, he
insisted that instead of being treated as a terrorist, an enemy
combatant, he be read his Miranda rights. That is right. Attorney
General Holder insisted this terrorist be told: You have the right to
remain silent. You have the right to a lawyer. This is the sort of
muddled thinking that I think has created such potential for harm,
treating a war and terrorists as if they were conventional criminals
who ought to be handled through our civilian courts.
While Attorney General Holder was worrying about the rights of people
such as the Christmas Day Bomber, he was targeting some of the very
Americans who risked their lives to keep America safe. In fact, he
appointed a special prosecutor--he thought this was sufficient to
appoint a special prosecutor, not to investigate these classified leaks
but to investigate U.S. intelligence officials in conducting their
duties--he appointed a special prosecutor to investigate CIA
interrogators during the prior administration, men and perhaps women
who did what they did based on legal advice from the Department of
Justice and based on the belief that what they were doing was important
to the safety and security of U.S. citizens, and I think they were
right.
Attorney General Holder has also seen fit to release top secret memos
detailing interrogation methods, information which, of course, quickly
found its way into the hands of America's enemies and which they could
use to train to resist our intelligence-gathering efforts.
Attorney General Holder's failure to grasp the most important lesson
of the last decade, that we are at war against al-Qaida, demonstrates
more than just a willingness to carry a political agenda for this
administration. It is a sad result of an ideological blindness to the
law. It has moved the Department of Justice, and unfortunately this
country, in a dangerous direction.
I would continue on with examples of Eric Holder's litany of failure,
but I believe the case is clear-cut. The American people deserve an
Attorney General who is independent of politics, who is accountable to
the oversight of Congress, and who is transparent. Mr. Holder has
proven that he is none of these things. It is with regret, not with
anger but with regret and sadness I say it is time for him to resign.
I yield the floor.
[...]
