disinfozone/The_Info_Web
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

vault backup: 2026-10-12 21:40:22

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
disinfo.zone 2026-10-12 21:40:22 -04:00
parent 029ce5a98a
commit b4af588f5a
No known key found for this signature in database
39 changed files with 1988 additions and 569 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

127
20 - ORGANIZATIONS/GOVERNMENT/USA/Senate Judiciary Committee.md
View file

@ -22,50 +22,50 @@ relations:
with: "[[Ronald LeGrand]]"
reverse: true
role: "chief investigator"
fn: 12
fn: 15
- type: investigated
with: "[[Leonard Leo]]"
start: 2023-07-11
role: "sought information on his interactions with Supreme Court justices and records on his donor-group network; his counsel declined"
fn: 31
fn: 34
- type: head_of
with: "[[Dick Durbin]]"
reverse: true
start: 2023-01-03
end: 2025-01-03
role: "chairman"
fn: 28
fn: 31
- type: head_of
with: "[[Dick Durbin]]"
reverse: true
start: 2025-01-03
role: "ranking member"
fn: 33
fn: 36
- type: head_of
with: "[[Chuck Grassley]]"
reverse: true
start: 2025-01-03
role: "chairman"
fn: 32
fn: 35
- type: participant_in
with: "[[Griffin Bell]]"
reverse: true
start: 1977-01-11
end: 1977-01-19
role: "nominee for Attorney General, confirmation hearings"
fn: 18
fn: 21
- type: participant_in
with: "[[William Bradford Reynolds]]"
reverse: true
start: 1985-06-27
role: "nominee for associate attorney general; committee vote against his nomination"
fn: 19
fn: 22
- type: participant_in
with: "[[Todd Blanche]]"
reverse: true
start: 2026-07-15
role: "nominee for Attorney General, confirmation hearing"
fn: 23
fn: 26
- type: participant_in
with: "[[Frank Carlucci]]"
reverse: true
@ -89,31 +89,31 @@ relations:
reverse: true
start: 2005-09-21
role: "witness, Able Danger hearing"
fn: 25
fn: 28
- type: participant_in
with: "[[Mark Zaid]]"
reverse: true
start: 2005-09-21
role: "witness, Able Danger hearing"
fn: 25
fn: 28
- type: participant_in
with: "[[Christopher Wylie]]"
reverse: true
start: 2018-05-16
role: "witness, Cambridge Analytica hearing"
fn: 27
fn: 30
- type: participant_in
with: "[[Jason Citron]]"
reverse: true
start: 2024-01-31
role: "witness, online child sexual exploitation hearing"
fn: 29
fn: 32
- type: participant_in
with: "[[Neil M. Barofsky]]"
reverse: true
start: 2026-02-03
role: "witness, Nazi-linked accounts hearing"
fn: 32
fn: 35
- type: head_of
with: "[[James Eastland]]"
reverse: true
@ -147,65 +147,69 @@ On June 12, 1962, the subcommittee, with Eastland as chairman, [[Thomas J. Dodd]
In 1980 the committee held a hearing on S. 2216, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Deputy [[Director of Central Intelligence]] [[Frank Carlucci]] testified that the problem "had its inception with faithless Government employees who went public with the names of CIA personnel, the most prominent of whom, of course, is [[Philip Agee|Phillip Agee]]." He added that the activity had since been "picked up by a number of people who are not former Government employees."[^10]
### Behavior Modification Inquiry, 1974, and LEAA Oversight, 1981
The Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, chaired by [[Sam J. Ervin]], examined federally funded behavior control research in 1974. Its staff print of November 1974, Individual Rights and the Federal Role in Behavior Modification, records LEAA's inquiry into a proposed UCLA center for the study and reduction of violence, the agency's February 14, 1974 ban on funding for psychosurgery, medical research, chemotherapy and behavior modification, and an April 10, 1974 LEAA printout listing 537 behavior-related projects.[^11] LEAA's Administrator at the time, Donald E. Santarelli, had been special counsel to the same subcommittee from 1968 to 1969.[^12] On October 28, 1981 the Subcommittee on Juvenile Justice held an oversight hearing on the Office of Justice Assistance, Research and Statistics, the office created in 1979 to coordinate the [[LEAA|Law Enforcement Assistance Administration]], the National Institute of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The Justice Department's statement at that hearing recorded that LEAA had had no program funds after fiscal 1980.[^13]
### INSLAW
In mid-1979, when the FBI sought approval to buy a new front-end processor, the committee commissioned technical analyses from the [[OTA|Office of Technology Assessment]] and from [[INSLAW]].[^11] The Office of Technology Assessment report on a national criminal history system, issued in October 1982, was prepared at the request of the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary. It records that in 1979 and 1980 Congress conditioned approval of the [[National Crime Information Center]] technology upgrade, including its front-end processor and mainframe computer, on a strict prohibition of message switching.[^11]
In mid-1979, when the FBI sought approval to buy a new front-end processor, the committee commissioned technical analyses from the [[OTA|Office of Technology Assessment]] and from [[INSLAW]].[^14] The Office of Technology Assessment report on a national criminal history system, issued in October 1982, was prepared at the request of the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary. It records that in 1979 and 1980 Congress conditioned approval of the [[National Crime Information Center]] technology upgrade, including its front-end processor and mainframe computer, on a strict prohibition of message switching.[^14]
In late April 1988 [[Ronald LeGrand]], then the committee's chief investigator, telephoned [[Bill Hamilton]], president of INSLAW, and asked for a full briefing on the company's disputes with the department. Hamilton and his wife, [[Nancy Hamilton]], briefed him at the company's offices on the morning of May 11. Two days later LeGrand telephoned Hamilton with information that he said a trusted source had asked him to convey. LeGrand described the source as a senior career official in the department "with a title" whom he had known for 15 years.[^12]
In late April 1988 [[Ronald LeGrand]], then the committee's chief investigator, telephoned [[Bill Hamilton]], president of INSLAW, and asked for a full briefing on the company's disputes with the department. Hamilton and his wife, [[Nancy Hamilton]], briefed him at the company's offices on the morning of May 11. Two days later LeGrand telephoned Hamilton with information that he said a trusted source had asked him to convey. LeGrand described the source as a senior career official in the department "with a title" whom he had known for 15 years.[^15]
According to Hamilton's December 1989 affidavit, as quoted in the [[Nicholas J. Bua|Bua report]], the source said that "the INSLAW case was a lot dirtier for the Department of Justice than Watergate was, both in its breadth and in its depth," and that the "Justice Department has been compromised on the INSLAW case at every level." Hamilton's account of the message, as set out by [[Cheri Seymour]], begins with the words "What you think happened, did happen," and has the source describe the Criminal Division as the center of the effort to drive the company out of business.[^13]
According to Hamilton's December 1989 affidavit, as quoted in the [[Nicholas J. Bua|Bua report]], the source said that "the INSLAW case was a lot dirtier for the Department of Justice than Watergate was, both in its breadth and in its depth," and that the "Justice Department has been compromised on the INSLAW case at every level." Hamilton's account of the message, as set out by [[Cheri Seymour]], begins with the words "What you think happened, did happen," and has the source describe the Criminal Division as the center of the effort to drive the company out of business.[^16]
The affidavit, as quoted in the Bua report, names [[Lowell Jensen]], the Deputy Attorney General, as the official who engineered INSLAW's problems and who relied principally on [[Miles Matthews]], [[James Knapp]] and [[James Johnston]]. Matthews was quoted as saying, in the source's presence, that "Lowell [Jensen] wants to get INSLAW out of the way and give the business to friends." The source said that [[John Keeney]], [[Mark M. Richard|Mark Richard]] and [[Philip White]] knew "all about" Jensen's conduct and were "pretty upset," but would disclose what they knew only under subpoena and oath. The source believed that documents relating to [[Project Eagle]] were shredded inside the department.[^12]
The affidavit, as quoted in the Bua report, names [[Lowell Jensen]], the Deputy Attorney General, as the official who engineered INSLAW's problems and who relied principally on [[Miles Matthews]], [[James Knapp]] and [[James Johnston]]. Matthews was quoted as saying, in the source's presence, that "Lowell [Jensen] wants to get INSLAW out of the way and give the business to friends." The source said that [[John Keeney]], [[Mark M. Richard|Mark Richard]] and [[Philip White]] knew "all about" Jensen's conduct and were "pretty upset," but would disclose what they knew only under subpoena and oath. The source believed that documents relating to [[Project Eagle]] were shredded inside the department.[^15]
LeGrand, a former Drug Enforcement Administration agent, was asked by House Judiciary Committee investigators to identify the trusted source so that they could contact that person, and he declined. He said he would consider giving a sworn statement if the committee made a request to Chairwoman [[Cardiss Collins]] of the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Government Activities and Transportation, to which he had moved from the Senate committee; the committee's chairman wrote to Collins on July 20, 1990. Investigators then made numerous attempts to schedule the statement, LeGrand left the Washington area without informing the committee, and the committee wrote to him again on November 20, 1990. On February 14, 1991, he gave a sworn statement in which, in the House report's words, he provided "little corroboration" of the Hamiltons' allegations. He attributed the discrepancy to "the unintentional merging of comments from different persons" that the Hamiltons had credited to the trusted source, and said that he had gathered information from several individuals during his inquiry.[^14] Asked whether the source had said that the INSLAW case was "a lot dirtier" than Watergate "both in its breadth and in its depth," he answered that the source had said there was more to the matter than people were aware of and had made a comparison to Watergate, but that he did not recall those words. He again declined to name the source.[^14]
LeGrand, a former Drug Enforcement Administration agent, was asked by House Judiciary Committee investigators to identify the trusted source so that they could contact that person, and he declined. He said he would consider giving a sworn statement if the committee made a request to Chairwoman [[Cardiss Collins]] of the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Government Activities and Transportation, to which he had moved from the Senate committee; the committee's chairman wrote to Collins on July 20, 1990. Investigators then made numerous attempts to schedule the statement, LeGrand left the Washington area without informing the committee, and the committee wrote to him again on November 20, 1990. On February 14, 1991, he gave a sworn statement in which, in the House report's words, he provided "little corroboration" of the Hamiltons' allegations. He attributed the discrepancy to "the unintentional merging of comments from different persons" that the Hamiltons had credited to the trusted source, and said that he had gathered information from several individuals during his inquiry.[^17] Asked whether the source had said that the INSLAW case was "a lot dirtier" than Watergate "both in its breadth and in its depth," he answered that the source had said there was more to the matter than people were aware of and had made a comparison to Watergate, but that he did not recall those words. He again declined to name the source.[^17]
On October 11, 1988, [[Elliot Richardson]], counsel to INSLAW, had sent a memorandum summarizing LeGrand's statements to [[Robin Ross]], an assistant to Attorney General [[Richard Thornburgh]].[^15] Hamilton's December 22, 1989 affidavit states that LeGrand had confirmed what he told Hamilton on several occasions after May 1988.[^16] LeGrand told House investigators and Special Counsel Bua that, as far as he knew, none of the information from his source was obtained first-hand, and he confirmed to both that he believed the source had given him some of the information reflected in Hamilton's affidavit.[^16] When Bua's team contacted LeGrand, who no longer worked for the Senate, he said he would describe the source's information but would not disclose the source's identity.[^12]
On October 11, 1988, [[Elliot Richardson]], counsel to INSLAW, had sent a memorandum summarizing LeGrand's statements to [[Robin Ross]], an assistant to Attorney General [[Richard Thornburgh]].[^18] Hamilton's December 22, 1989 affidavit states that LeGrand had confirmed what he told Hamilton on several occasions after May 1988.[^19] LeGrand told House investigators and Special Counsel Bua that, as far as he knew, none of the information from his source was obtained first-hand, and he confirmed to both that he believed the source had given him some of the information reflected in Hamilton's affidavit.[^19] When Bua's team contacted LeGrand, who no longer worked for the Senate, he said he would describe the source's information but would not disclose the source's identity.[^15]
LeGrand later gave a different account. At the Department of Justice's request, he submitted an affidavit, filed as a declaration in INSLAW's bankruptcy case (Case No. 85-0070), refuting INSLAW's claim that he had conveyed "highly specific" allegations to the Hamiltons. He stated that he had told them of "general allegations, rumors," and of information heard from different sources about various persons in the department. The House report describes the affidavit's assertion that the source had no personal knowledge of the department's handling of the matter as "striking," coming after several years of LeGrand's statements to William Hamilton, to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and to the House committee. His sworn statement of February 14, 1991 to House investigators, his acknowledgment to House investigators and to Bua that the source had given him some of the information in Hamilton's affidavit, and the October 11, 1988 memorandum remain in the record beside the affidavit. The House report adds that Hamilton later alleged to the committee that Roger Pauley, a Justice Department official, was LeGrand's contact within the department.[^14]
LeGrand later gave a different account. At the Department of Justice's request, he submitted an affidavit, filed as a declaration in INSLAW's bankruptcy case (Case No. 85-0070), refuting INSLAW's claim that he had conveyed "highly specific" allegations to the Hamiltons. He stated that he had told them of "general allegations, rumors," and of information heard from different sources about various persons in the department. The House report describes the affidavit's assertion that the source had no personal knowledge of the department's handling of the matter as "striking," coming after several years of LeGrand's statements to William Hamilton, to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and to the House committee. His sworn statement of February 14, 1991 to House investigators, his acknowledgment to House investigators and to Bua that the source had given him some of the information in Hamilton's affidavit, and the October 11, 1988 memorandum remain in the record beside the affidavit. The House report adds that Hamilton later alleged to the committee that Roger Pauley, a Justice Department official, was LeGrand's contact within the department.[^17]
The source gave a further account on February 7, 1994, to the Justice Department review team that Attorney General [[Janet Reno]] ordered to examine Bua's report. The source had refused to be interviewed by Bua and by the House investigators; the review's report states that he agreed to be interviewed by the review team because of his respect for and confidence in Reno. The interview took place in a private dining room at a local club, with LeGrand and Morgan Frankel, Assistant Legal Counsel of the United States Senate, present. The source identified himself to the team, which stated that it verified that he is a long-time career employee of the department, and said that he had known LeGrand for about 20 years (Hamilton's affidavit gives 15). He told the team that he had no first-hand knowledge of any misconduct by anyone in relation to PROMIS or INSLAW and had heard no rumors he would consider credible; that the subject of INSLAW came up in a friendly conversation with LeGrand in 1987 or 1988; that he suggested LeGrand contact Miles Matthews because he did not particularly like or trust Matthews; and that he never mentioned Lowell Jensen, Mark Richard, Philip White, James Johnston or James Knapp to LeGrand. When the review team read him the passage from Hamilton's affidavit, he said that none of the statements or beliefs attributed to him were accurate, and that he had no reason to believe that documents relating to Project Eagle were improperly shredded.[^16] The review team wrote that it had concluded there was no credible evidence of a conspiracy involving Jensen or other senior department officials. In its own account Bua's report had recorded that Matthews, Knapp, Johnston, White, Keeney and Richard each denied knowledge of the wrongdoing described in Hamilton's affidavit.[^16] INSLAW's rebuttal to the Bua report had criticized the special counsel for not investigating the allegations attributed to the source.[^16]
The source gave a further account on February 7, 1994, to the Justice Department review team that Attorney General [[Janet Reno]] ordered to examine Bua's report. The source had refused to be interviewed by Bua and by the House investigators; the review's report states that he agreed to be interviewed by the review team because of his respect for and confidence in Reno. The interview took place in a private dining room at a local club, with LeGrand and Morgan Frankel, Assistant Legal Counsel of the United States Senate, present. The source identified himself to the team, which stated that it verified that he is a long-time career employee of the department, and said that he had known LeGrand for about 20 years (Hamilton's affidavit gives 15). He told the team that he had no first-hand knowledge of any misconduct by anyone in relation to PROMIS or INSLAW and had heard no rumors he would consider credible; that the subject of INSLAW came up in a friendly conversation with LeGrand in 1987 or 1988; that he suggested LeGrand contact Miles Matthews because he did not particularly like or trust Matthews; and that he never mentioned Lowell Jensen, Mark Richard, Philip White, James Johnston or James Knapp to LeGrand. When the review team read him the passage from Hamilton's affidavit, he said that none of the statements or beliefs attributed to him were accurate, and that he had no reason to believe that documents relating to Project Eagle were improperly shredded.[^19] The review team wrote that it had concluded there was no credible evidence of a conspiracy involving Jensen or other senior department officials. In its own account Bua's report had recorded that Matthews, Knapp, Johnston, White, Keeney and Richard each denied knowledge of the wrongdoing described in Hamilton's affidavit.[^19] INSLAW's rebuttal to the Bua report had criticized the special counsel for not investigating the allegations attributed to the source.[^19]
The Justice Department's 1994 review, which affirmed the special counsel's findings, concluded that there was "no credible evidence" that department officials conspired to steal the software developed by INSLAW, and recommended that the affair be closed. The same release reaffirmed police findings that the death of [[Danny Casolaro]], a free-lance journalist investigating the INSLAW matter, was a suicide.[^17]
The Justice Department's 1994 review, which affirmed the special counsel's findings, concluded that there was "no credible evidence" that department officials conspired to steal the software developed by INSLAW, and recommended that the affair be closed. The same release reaffirmed police findings that the death of [[Danny Casolaro]], a free-lance journalist investigating the INSLAW matter, was a suicide.[^20]
### Nominations
On January 11, 1977, the committee began hearings on the nomination of [[Griffin Bell]] as Attorney General. The hearings continued on January 12, 13, 14, 17, 18 and 19 under Chairman James Eastland. Eastland told Bell on the first day: "Judge, you have been an outstanding lawyer and an outstanding member of the judiciary. You are honest and honorable. I will vote to confirm you."[^18]
On January 11, 1977, the committee began hearings on the nomination of [[Griffin Bell]] as Attorney General. The hearings continued on January 12, 13, 14, 17, 18 and 19 under Chairman James Eastland. Eastland told Bell on the first day: "Judge, you have been an outstanding lawyer and an outstanding member of the judiciary. You are honest and honorable. I will vote to confirm you."[^21]
On June 27, 1985, the committee voted 10 to 8 to reject President [[Ronald Reagan]]'s nomination of [[William Bradford Reynolds]] as associate attorney general and declined to send it to the Senate floor.[^19][^20][^21] The committee then had ten Republicans and eight Democrats.[^20] Before the vote, Senator [[Dennis DeConcini]] had told Reynolds, "It is an issue of whether you told the truth here."[^20] Reagan's statement that day said that some members of the committee had used the confirmation process "to conduct an ideological assault on so superbly qualified a candidate."[^19]
On June 27, 1985, the committee voted 10 to 8 to reject President [[Ronald Reagan]]'s nomination of [[William Bradford Reynolds]] as associate attorney general and declined to send it to the Senate floor.[^22][^23][^24] The committee then had ten Republicans and eight Democrats.[^23] Before the vote, Senator [[Dennis DeConcini]] had told Reynolds, "It is an issue of whether you told the truth here."[^23] Reagan's statement that day said that some members of the committee had used the confirmation process "to conduct an ideological assault on so superbly qualified a candidate."[^22]
On September 27, 2018, under Chairman [[Chuck Grassley]], the committee continued its confirmation hearing on the nomination of [[Brett Kavanaugh]] to the Supreme Court with two witnesses, Kavanaugh and a woman who had alleged in a letter to the ranking member, Senator [[Dianne Feinstein]], that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a party when both were in high school. Grassley said in his opening statement that none of six FBI background investigations of Kavanaugh since 1993 contained an issue of inappropriate sexual behavior. Kavanaugh testified: "I categorically and unequivocally deny the allegation against me."[^22]
On September 27, 2018, under Chairman [[Chuck Grassley]], the committee continued its confirmation hearing on the nomination of [[Brett Kavanaugh]] to the Supreme Court with two witnesses, Kavanaugh and a woman who had alleged in a letter to the ranking member, Senator [[Dianne Feinstein]], that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a party when both were in high school. Grassley said in his opening statement that none of six FBI background investigations of Kavanaugh since 1993 contained an issue of inappropriate sexual behavior. Kavanaugh testified: "I categorically and unequivocally deny the allegation against me."[^25]
On July 15, 2026, the committee questioned [[Todd Blanche]], then acting Attorney General and the president's nominee for the permanent post, at his confirmation hearing.[^23]
On July 15, 2026, the committee questioned [[Todd Blanche]], then acting Attorney General and the president's nominee for the permanent post, at his confirmation hearing.[^26]
### Joint Narcotics Hearings
The committee and the [[Caucus on International Narcotics Control]] held joint hearings on [[Jamaica]]'s proposed comprehensive international anti-narcotics plan and on drug policy in the Andean nations on November 6, 1989, and on January 18 and March 27, 1990. The record was published in 1991.[^24]
The committee and the [[Caucus on International Narcotics Control]] held joint hearings on [[Jamaica]]'s proposed comprehensive international anti-narcotics plan and on drug policy in the Andean nations on November 6, 1989, and on January 18 and March 27, 1990. The record was published in 1991.[^27]
### Able Danger
On September 21, 2005, the committee, under Chairman [[Arlen Specter]], held a hearing titled "Able Danger and Intelligence Information Sharing" on a Defense Department counterterrorism data-analysis program.[^25] Representative [[Curt Weldon]] testified that Captain Philpott had "identified absolutely Mohammed Atta as a part of the Brooklyn cell" in January and February 2000. He said that [[Erik Kleinsmith]], a former Army major and chief of intelligence, would testify that he had been ordered to destroy all Able Danger material, 2.5 terabytes of it.[^25] The FBI, the Defense Department and Kleinsmith, then of [[Lockheed Martin]], also presented testimony. Attorney [[Mark Zaid]] told the committee that Able Danger never identified Atta in the United States, and that a chart listed Atta under "Brooklyn, New York," which prompted apprehension among Army lawyers and policy staff about compiling data on United States persons. He also said that most of his testimony was hearsay, because it rested on what he had been told by people associated with the program.[^25]
On September 21, 2005, the committee, under Chairman [[Arlen Specter]], held a hearing titled "Able Danger and Intelligence Information Sharing" on a Defense Department counterterrorism data-analysis program.[^28] Representative [[Curt Weldon]] testified that Captain Philpott had "identified absolutely Mohammed Atta as a part of the Brooklyn cell" in January and February 2000. He said that [[Erik Kleinsmith]], a former Army major and chief of intelligence, would testify that he had been ordered to destroy all Able Danger material, 2.5 terabytes of it.[^28] The FBI, the Defense Department and Kleinsmith, then of [[Lockheed Martin]], also presented testimony. Attorney [[Mark Zaid]] told the committee that Able Danger never identified Atta in the United States, and that a chart listed Atta under "Brooklyn, New York," which prompted apprehension among Army lawyers and policy staff about compiling data on United States persons. He also said that most of his testimony was hearsay, because it rested on what he had been told by people associated with the program.[^28]
### Cambridge Analytica
On May 16, 2018, the committee held a hearing titled "Cambridge Analytica and the Future of Data Privacy."[^26] [[Christopher Wylie]], a former employee of [[Cambridge Analytica]], testified. His written statement said that the firm was created by [[SCL Group|SCL]] with funding from [[Robert Mercer]], and that [[Steve Bannon]] was installed as its vice president. It said Bannon "engaged SCL, a foreign military contractor, to build an arsenal of informational weapons he could deploy on the American population."[^27] The statement also said that after a request for information from executives of [[Lukoil]] in the spring of 2014, Cambridge Analytica discussed with Lukoil its experience with "foreign disinformation, rumour campaigns, microtargeting and its American data assets."[^27]
On May 16, 2018, the committee held a hearing titled "Cambridge Analytica and the Future of Data Privacy."[^29] [[Christopher Wylie]], a former employee of [[Cambridge Analytica]], testified. His written statement said that the firm was created by [[SCL Group|SCL]] with funding from [[Robert Mercer]], and that [[Steve Bannon]] was installed as its vice president. It said Bannon "engaged SCL, a foreign military contractor, to build an arsenal of informational weapons he could deploy on the American population."[^30] The statement also said that after a request for information from executives of [[Lukoil]] in the spring of 2014, Cambridge Analytica discussed with Lukoil its experience with "foreign disinformation, rumour campaigns, microtargeting and its American data assets."[^30]
### Child Safety
On November 20, 2023, Chairman [[Dick Durbin]] and Ranking Member [[Lindsey Graham]] announced subpoenas to the chief executives of [[Discord]], [[Snap Inc.]] and [[X Corp.]] to testify at a December 6 full committee hearing on online child sexual exploitation.[^28] The hearing was held on January 31, 2024, under the title "Big Tech and the Online Child Sexual Exploitation Crisis." [[Jason Citron]], chief executive and co-founder of Discord, testified.[^29]
On November 20, 2023, Chairman [[Dick Durbin]] and Ranking Member [[Lindsey Graham]] announced subpoenas to the chief executives of [[Discord]], [[Snap Inc.]] and [[X Corp.]] to testify at a December 6 full committee hearing on online child sexual exploitation.[^31] The hearing was held on January 31, 2024, under the title "Big Tech and the Online Child Sexual Exploitation Crisis." [[Jason Citron]], chief executive and co-founder of Discord, testified.[^32]
### Leonard Leo
Under Chairman Durbin the committee sought the records and testimony of [[Leonard Leo]] on his network of conservative donor groups.[^30] On July 11, 2023, Durbin and [[Sheldon Whitehouse]], chair of the Federal Courts subcommittee, wrote to Leo requesting information about his interactions with Supreme Court justices.[^31] Leo's counsel, [[David B. Rivkin Jr.]] of [[Baker & Hostetler]], replied on July 25, 2023, that the inquiry exceeded the constitutional limits on the committee's investigative authority and infringed Leo's First Amendment rights. The letter argued that the inquiry was motivated by hostility to Leo's views and quoted Whitehouse's description of Leo as "the little spider that you find at the center of the dark money web." It also said that the committee's ethics bill, S. 359, which the committee ordered reported on July 20, 2023, raised separation-of-powers objections. The letter declined to provide the requested information and closed: "We will not be part of that journey."[^31]
Under Chairman Durbin the committee sought the records and testimony of [[Leonard Leo]] on his network of conservative donor groups.[^33] On July 11, 2023, Durbin and [[Sheldon Whitehouse]], chair of the Federal Courts subcommittee, wrote to Leo requesting information about his interactions with Supreme Court justices.[^34] Leo's counsel, [[David B. Rivkin Jr.]] of [[Baker & Hostetler]], replied on July 25, 2023, that the inquiry exceeded the constitutional limits on the committee's investigative authority and infringed Leo's First Amendment rights. The letter argued that the inquiry was motivated by hostility to Leo's views and quoted Whitehouse's description of Leo as "the little spider that you find at the center of the dark money web." It also said that the committee's ethics bill, S. 359, which the committee ordered reported on July 20, 2023, raised separation-of-powers objections. The letter declined to provide the requested information and closed: "We will not be part of that journey."[^34]
### Credit Suisse
On February 3, 2026, the committee held a hearing titled "The Truth Revealed: Hidden Facts Regarding Nazis and Swiss Banks." The hearing's chairman was Grassley and its ranking member was Durbin. [[Neil M. Barofsky]], the independent ombudsperson overseeing [[Credit Suisse]], testified that the bank had maintained previously unreported, and in one instance underreported, wartime account relationships with several instrumentalities of the Nazi government. These included the [[German Foreign Office]], which held at least four accounts at Credit Suisse under a pseudonym. He said that to date the investigation had determined that 628 individuals and 262 legal entities within its scope had account relationships with the bank, and he described a wartime account held by [[Leo Volk]], a senior SS officer and convicted war criminal, who used it to hold hundreds of thousands of Swiss francs. Barofsky described the bank as providing banking services, and premises, to an Argentine ratline, a smuggling operation organized by the Argentine government from an office in Bern called the "Argentine Immigration Office." He told the committee that [[UBS]] had begun a privilege review that withheld materials from his team, and that he expected the investigation to be completed within six months, with a final report to follow a few months after that.[^32]
On February 3, 2026, the committee held a hearing titled "The Truth Revealed: Hidden Facts Regarding Nazis and Swiss Banks." The hearing's chairman was Grassley and its ranking member was Durbin. [[Neil M. Barofsky]], the independent ombudsperson overseeing [[Credit Suisse]], testified that the bank had maintained previously unreported, and in one instance underreported, wartime account relationships with several instrumentalities of the Nazi government. These included the [[German Foreign Office]], which held at least four accounts at Credit Suisse under a pseudonym. He said that to date the investigation had determined that 628 individuals and 262 legal entities within its scope had account relationships with the bank, and he described a wartime account held by [[Leo Volk]], a senior SS officer and convicted war criminal, who used it to hold hundreds of thousands of Swiss francs. Barofsky described the bank as providing banking services, and premises, to an Argentine ratline, a smuggling operation organized by the Argentine government from an office in Bern called the "Argentine Immigration Office." He told the committee that [[UBS]] had begun a privilege review that withheld materials from his team, and that he expected the investigation to be completed within six months, with a final report to follow a few months after that.[^35]
### Epstein Files Oversight
On July 7, 2025, the Justice Department and the FBI released an unsigned memorandum on what it called an "exhaustive review of investigative holdings relating to Jeffrey Epstein." Its findings included that the review "revealed no incriminating 'client list.'" On July 18, Durbin, the committee's ranking member, wrote to [[Pam Bondi]] that the finding contradicted public statements she had made in February 2025. He wrote that, according to information his office had received, she had pressured the FBI to assign about 1,000 personnel in its Information Management Division to review roughly 100,000 Epstein-related records on 24-hour shifts. He wrote that his office had been told that personnel were instructed to "flag" any records in which President Trump was mentioned.[^33] The same day he wrote to [[Kash Patel]], the FBI director, with the same question about the flagging and about why the memorandum was unsigned.[^34]
On July 7, 2025, the Justice Department and the FBI released an unsigned memorandum on what it called an "exhaustive review of investigative holdings relating to Jeffrey Epstein." Its findings included that the review "revealed no incriminating 'client list.'" On July 18, Durbin, the committee's ranking member, wrote to [[Pam Bondi]] that the finding contradicted public statements she had made in February 2025. He wrote that, according to information his office had received, she had pressured the FBI to assign about 1,000 personnel in its Information Management Division to review roughly 100,000 Epstein-related records on 24-hour shifts. He wrote that his office had been told that personnel were instructed to "flag" any records in which President Trump was mentioned.[^36] The same day he wrote to [[Kash Patel]], the FBI director, with the same question about the flagging and about why the memorandum was unsigned.[^37]
The [[Epstein Files Transparency Act]], enacted on November 19, 2025 as Public Law 119-38, required the attorney general, within fifteen days of completing the release of Epstein-related records, to report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees the categories of records released and withheld, a summary of redactions and their legal basis, and a list of government officials and politically exposed persons named in the released material, with no redactions permitted on that list.[^35] On February 14, 2026, Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche sent the Section 3 report on Department of Justice letterhead to Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin and the chairman and ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee ([[Jim Jordan]] and [[Jamie Raskin]]). The letter stated that the department had released all records relating to nine categories, among them flight logs, communications about decisions to charge or not charge Epstein and his associates, communications concerning the destruction or concealment of records, and documentation of Epstein's detention and death. It stated that information covered by deliberative-process, work-product and attorney-client privileges was redacted in a limited amount, and that no material was redacted or withheld on the basis that it was properly classified in the interest of national defense or foreign policy. It stated that "politically exposed persons" was not defined in the Act and that reviewers were told to note all government officials and politically exposed persons named or referenced in any document, video or image. The list that follows, in alphabetical order, runs to several hundred names of persons whose names appear in the released files "at least once," among them Steve Bannon, [[Ehud Barak]], [[Julian Assange]], [[William Barr]] and [[Donald Trump]]. The letter states that some of those listed had extensive direct email contact with Epstein or [[Ghislaine Maxwell]], while others are mentioned only in a portion of a document, including press reporting, that on its face is unrelated to the Epstein and Maxwell matters.[^36]
The [[Epstein Files Transparency Act]], enacted on November 19, 2025 as Public Law 119-38, required the attorney general, within fifteen days of completing the release of Epstein-related records, to report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees the categories of records released and withheld, a summary of redactions and their legal basis, and a list of government officials and politically exposed persons named in the released material, with no redactions permitted on that list.[^38] On February 14, 2026, Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche sent the Section 3 report on Department of Justice letterhead to Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin and the chairman and ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee ([[Jim Jordan]] and [[Jamie Raskin]]). The letter stated that the department had released all records relating to nine categories, among them flight logs, communications about decisions to charge or not charge Epstein and his associates, communications concerning the destruction or concealment of records, and documentation of Epstein's detention and death. It stated that information covered by deliberative-process, work-product and attorney-client privileges was redacted in a limited amount, and that no material was redacted or withheld on the basis that it was properly classified in the interest of national defense or foreign policy. It stated that "politically exposed persons" was not defined in the Act and that reviewers were told to note all government officials and politically exposed persons named or referenced in any document, video or image. The list that follows, in alphabetical order, runs to several hundred names of persons whose names appear in the released files "at least once," among them Steve Bannon, [[Ehud Barak]], [[Julian Assange]], [[William Barr]] and [[Donald Trump]]. The letter states that some of those listed had extensive direct email contact with Epstein or [[Ghislaine Maxwell]], while others are mentioned only in a portion of a document, including press reporting, that on its face is unrelated to the Epstein and Maxwell matters.[^39]
### Footnotes
@ -219,29 +223,32 @@ The [[Epstein Files Transparency Act]], enacted on November 19, 2025 as Public L
[^8]: Central Intelligence Agency, Office of Legislative Counsel, memorandum for the record, "Telephone Call From Mr. J. Sourwine, Chief Counsel, Senate Internal Security Subcommittee," January 21, 1972, CIA reading room document CIA-RDP74B00415R000200140126-2. https://archive.org/details/cia-readingroom-document-cia-rdp74b00415r000200140126-2
[^9]: U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, *State Department Security: The New Passport Regulations*, hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws, 87th Congress, Part 3, May 16, June 7, 12 and 19, 1962 (GPO, 1962), testimony of Andreas F. Lowenfeld, June 12, 1962 (index p. 329; the passage quoted is at p. 331 as excerpted in CIA reading room document CIA-RDP75-00149R000400560007-3). CIA reading room copy of the volume: https://archive.org/details/cia-readingroom-document-cia-rdp66b00403r000500120001-1 ; extract: https://archive.org/details/cia-readingroom-document-cia-rdp75-00149r000400560007-3
[^10]: U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, *Intelligence Identities Protection Act, S. 2216*, hearing, Serial No. 96-86 (1980), testimony of Frank C. Carlucci. CIA reading room document CIA-RDP85-00003R000200080003-5. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp85-00003r000200080003-5
[^11]: Office of Technology Assessment, *An Assessment of Alternatives for a National Computerized Criminal History System* (Washington, October 1982), prepared at the request of the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary; on congressional conditions on the NCIC technology upgrade in 1979 and 1980, see the report's discussion of message switching. https://ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/86624NCJRS.pdf
[^12]: U.S. Department of Justice, *Report of Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua to the Attorney General of the United States Regarding the Allegations of INSLAW, Inc.*, March 1993, section 10, "Ronald LeGrand," pp. 113-114, quoting William Hamilton's affidavit of December 1989. Copy: https://archive.org/stream/InslawPROMISBuaReport/Inslaw%3APROMIS%20Bua%20Report_djvu.txt
[^13]: Seymour, Cheri. *The Last Circle: Danny Casolaro's Investigation into the Octopus and the PROMIS Software Scandal.* TrineDay, 2010.
[^14]: U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, *The INSLAW Affair: Investigative Report*, H. Rept. 102-857 (1992), section 7, "Ronald LeGrand Denies INSLAW's Assertions," pp. 62-64 (including the footnote on Hamilton's allegation concerning Roger Pauley and the citation of LeGrand's declaration in Bankruptcy Case No. 85-0070). https://archive.org/stream/InslawAffairInvestigativeReport/TheInslawAffair_djvu.txt
[^15]: Bua report, section 10, p. 113, quoting Hamilton's December 1989 affidavit on the October 11, 1988 memorandum from Elliot Richardson to Robin Ross.
[^16]: U.S. Department of Justice, *Report on the Review of Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua's Report on the Allegations of INSLAW, Inc.*, September 27, 1994, section IV.B.1, "Ronald LeGrand's Confidential Source," pp. 22-28, quoting Hamilton's affidavit of December 22, 1989 and citing Bua Report 113-120 and INSLAW Rebuttal 44-46; bound with the Bua report at https://archive.org/stream/InslawPROMISBuaReport/Inslaw%3APROMIS%20Bua%20Report_djvu.txt
[^17]: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, "New Report Finds No Credible Basis for INSLAW Case, Recommends Matter Be Closed," September 27, 1994. https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/Pre_96/September94/555.txt.html
[^18]: U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, *Griffin B. Bell: Hearings on the prospective nomination of Griffin B. Bell, of Georgia, to be Attorney General*, 95th Congress, 1st session, January 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18 and 19, 1977 (GPO, 1977), opening day statement of Chairman Eastland. https://archive.org/details/griffinbbellhear00unit
[^19]: Ronald Reagan, "Statement on Senate Action on the Nomination of William Bradford Reynolds To Be Associate Attorney General," June 27, 1985. The American Presidency Project. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/259520
[^20]: "Senate confirmation for senior Justice Department official is in jeopardy," *Christian Science Monitor*, June 20, 1985. https://www.csmonitor.com/1985/0620/arey.html
[^21]: "Assistant Attorney General William Bradford Reynolds says a Senate...," *United Press International*, August 28, 1985 ("The Senate Judiciary Committee, on a 10-8 vote, rejected Reynold's nomination"). https://www.upi.com/Archives/1985/08/28/Assistant-Attorney-General-William-Bradford-Reynolds-says-a-Senate/8603494049600/ ; see also the Reagan statement of June 27, 1985.
[^22]: U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, *Confirmation Hearing on the Nomination of Hon. Brett M. Kavanaugh to Be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States*, S. Hrg. 115-545, Parts 1-2 (hearings of September 4-7 and September 27, 2018), continuation of the hearing, Thursday, September 27, 2018: opening statement of Chairman Grassley and testimony of Judge Kavanaugh. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-115shrg32765/html/CHRG-115shrg32765.htm
[^23]: National Public Radio, "Todd Blanche's high-stakes confirmation hearing for attorney general is underway," July 15, 2026. https://www.npr.org/2026/07/15/nx-s1-5894750/todd-blanches-high-stakes-confirmation-hearing-for-attorney-general-is-underway
[^24]: U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary and Caucus on International Narcotics Control, joint hearings on Jamaica's proposed comprehensive international anti-narcotics plan and on drug policy in the Andean nations, November 6, 1989, and January 18 and March 27, 1990, S. Hrg. 101-1228 (Government Printing Office, 1991). Catalog record: https://search.law.villanova.edu/Record/88328
[^25]: U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, *Able Danger and Intelligence Information Sharing*, hearing, September 21, 2005, S. Hrg. 109-311, Serial No. J-109-39, testimony of Representative Curt Weldon (p. 5 and following), Gary M. Bald, William Dugan, Erik Kleinsmith, and Mark S. Zaid (pp. 21-22). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-109shrg25409/pdf/CHRG-109shrg25409.pdf
[^26]: U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, hearing "Cambridge Analytica and the Future of Data Privacy," May 16, 2018. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/hearings/cambridge-analytica-and-the-future-of-data-privacy
[^27]: Christopher Wylie, written statement, "In the Matter of Cambridge Analytica and Other Related Issues," Senate Committee on the Judiciary, May 16, 2018, paragraphs 8, 9 and 32. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/06/03/2026/05-16-18-wylie-testimony
[^28]: Senate Committee on the Judiciary, press release, "Durbin, Graham Announce Subpoenas to Big Tech CEOs to Testify About Their Failure to Protect Children Online," November 20, 2023. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/releases/durbin-graham-announce-subpoenas-to-big-tech-ceos-to-testify-about-their-failure-to-protect-children-online
[^29]: Jason Citron, testimony, "Big Tech and the Online Child Sexual Exploitation Crisis," hearing before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, January 31, 2024. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/2024-01-31-testimony-citron
[^30]: "Inside the 'Private and Confidential' Conservative Group That Promises to 'Crush Liberal Dominance,'" *ProPublica*, March 15, 2023.
[^31]: David B. Rivkin Jr., Baker & Hostetler, letter to Senators Richard J. Durbin and Sheldon Whitehouse, July 25, 2023, responding to the committee's letter of July 11, 2023. https://levin-center.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2023-7-25-Leo-counsels-ltr-to-Senate-Judiciary-declining-to-produce-requested-information.pdf
[^32]: Testimony of Neil M. Barofsky, Independent Ombudsperson for Credit Suisse AG, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, "The Truth Revealed: Hidden Facts Regarding Nazis and Swiss Banks," February 3, 2026. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/95317009-9c96-3e8f-f63d-04b7f29ef02f/2026-02-03_Testimony_Barofsky.pdf
[^33]: Senator Richard J. Durbin, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, July 18, 2025. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/2025-07-18-rjd-letter-to-ag-bondi-re-epstein?download=1
[^34]: Senator Richard J. Durbin, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, letter to FBI Director Kash Patel, July 18, 2025. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/2025-07-18-rjd-letter-to-fbi-director-patel-re-epstein?download=1
[^35]: Epstein Files Transparency Act, Public Law 119-38, 139 Stat. 656, sections 2 and 3, approved November 19, 2025. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ38/pdf/PLAW-119publ38.pdf
[^36]: Pamela J. Bondi, Attorney General, and Todd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General, letter to the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House Committees on the Judiciary, "Epstein Files Transparency Act: Section 3 Report to Congress," February 14, 2026, pp. 1-6. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1434856/dl ; coverage: "Justice Department lists hundreds of prominent people named in Epstein files in letter to Congress," *CNN*, February 15, 2026. https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/15/politics/doj-epstein-files-prominent-people
[^11]: Individual Rights and the Federal Role in Behavior Modification (Washington: GPO, November 1974), pp. 35-40. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/142690NCJRS.pdf
[^12]: The American Presidency Project, nomination of Donald Eugene Santarelli to the Board of Directors of the U.S. Synthetic Fuels Corporation, June 5, 1981. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/nomination-donald-eugene-santarelli-be-member-the-board-directors-the-united-states
[^13]: U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Juvenile Justice, Oversight of the Office of Justice Assistance, Research and Statistics, hearing of October 28, 1981, Serial No. J-97-74 (1982). https://archive.org/details/micro_IA41152817_0256
[^14]: Office of Technology Assessment, *An Assessment of Alternatives for a National Computerized Criminal History System* (Washington, October 1982), prepared at the request of the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary; on congressional conditions on the NCIC technology upgrade in 1979 and 1980, see the report's discussion of message switching. https://ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/86624NCJRS.pdf
[^15]: U.S. Department of Justice, *Report of Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua to the Attorney General of the United States Regarding the Allegations of INSLAW, Inc.*, March 1993, section 10, "Ronald LeGrand," pp. 113-114, quoting William Hamilton's affidavit of December 1989. Copy: https://archive.org/stream/InslawPROMISBuaReport/Inslaw%3APROMIS%20Bua%20Report_djvu.txt
[^16]: Seymour, Cheri. *The Last Circle: Danny Casolaro's Investigation into the Octopus and the PROMIS Software Scandal.* TrineDay, 2010.
[^17]: U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, *The INSLAW Affair: Investigative Report*, H. Rept. 102-857 (1992), section 7, "Ronald LeGrand Denies INSLAW's Assertions," pp. 62-64 (including the footnote on Hamilton's allegation concerning Roger Pauley and the citation of LeGrand's declaration in Bankruptcy Case No. 85-0070). https://archive.org/stream/InslawAffairInvestigativeReport/TheInslawAffair_djvu.txt
[^18]: Bua report, section 10, p. 113, quoting Hamilton's December 1989 affidavit on the October 11, 1988 memorandum from Elliot Richardson to Robin Ross.
[^19]: U.S. Department of Justice, *Report on the Review of Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua's Report on the Allegations of INSLAW, Inc.*, September 27, 1994, section IV.B.1, "Ronald LeGrand's Confidential Source," pp. 22-28, quoting Hamilton's affidavit of December 22, 1989 and citing Bua Report 113-120 and INSLAW Rebuttal 44-46; bound with the Bua report at https://archive.org/stream/InslawPROMISBuaReport/Inslaw%3APROMIS%20Bua%20Report_djvu.txt
[^20]: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, "New Report Finds No Credible Basis for INSLAW Case, Recommends Matter Be Closed," September 27, 1994. https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/Pre_96/September94/555.txt.html
[^21]: U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, *Griffin B. Bell: Hearings on the prospective nomination of Griffin B. Bell, of Georgia, to be Attorney General*, 95th Congress, 1st session, January 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18 and 19, 1977 (GPO, 1977), opening day statement of Chairman Eastland. https://archive.org/details/griffinbbellhear00unit
[^22]: Ronald Reagan, "Statement on Senate Action on the Nomination of William Bradford Reynolds To Be Associate Attorney General," June 27, 1985. The American Presidency Project. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/259520
[^23]: "Senate confirmation for senior Justice Department official is in jeopardy," *Christian Science Monitor*, June 20, 1985. https://www.csmonitor.com/1985/0620/arey.html
[^24]: "Assistant Attorney General William Bradford Reynolds says a Senate...," *United Press International*, August 28, 1985 ("The Senate Judiciary Committee, on a 10-8 vote, rejected Reynold's nomination"). https://www.upi.com/Archives/1985/08/28/Assistant-Attorney-General-William-Bradford-Reynolds-says-a-Senate/8603494049600/ ; see also the Reagan statement of June 27, 1985.
[^25]: U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, *Confirmation Hearing on the Nomination of Hon. Brett M. Kavanaugh to Be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States*, S. Hrg. 115-545, Parts 1-2 (hearings of September 4-7 and September 27, 2018), continuation of the hearing, Thursday, September 27, 2018: opening statement of Chairman Grassley and testimony of Judge Kavanaugh. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-115shrg32765/html/CHRG-115shrg32765.htm
[^26]: National Public Radio, "Todd Blanche's high-stakes confirmation hearing for attorney general is underway," July 15, 2026. https://www.npr.org/2026/07/15/nx-s1-5894750/todd-blanches-high-stakes-confirmation-hearing-for-attorney-general-is-underway
[^27]: U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary and Caucus on International Narcotics Control, joint hearings on Jamaica's proposed comprehensive international anti-narcotics plan and on drug policy in the Andean nations, November 6, 1989, and January 18 and March 27, 1990, S. Hrg. 101-1228 (Government Printing Office, 1991). Catalog record: https://search.law.villanova.edu/Record/88328
[^28]: U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, *Able Danger and Intelligence Information Sharing*, hearing, September 21, 2005, S. Hrg. 109-311, Serial No. J-109-39, testimony of Representative Curt Weldon (p. 5 and following), Gary M. Bald, William Dugan, Erik Kleinsmith, and Mark S. Zaid (pp. 21-22). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-109shrg25409/pdf/CHRG-109shrg25409.pdf
[^29]: U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, hearing "Cambridge Analytica and the Future of Data Privacy," May 16, 2018. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/hearings/cambridge-analytica-and-the-future-of-data-privacy
[^30]: Christopher Wylie, written statement, "In the Matter of Cambridge Analytica and Other Related Issues," Senate Committee on the Judiciary, May 16, 2018, paragraphs 8, 9 and 32. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/06/03/2026/05-16-18-wylie-testimony
[^31]: Senate Committee on the Judiciary, press release, "Durbin, Graham Announce Subpoenas to Big Tech CEOs to Testify About Their Failure to Protect Children Online," November 20, 2023. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/releases/durbin-graham-announce-subpoenas-to-big-tech-ceos-to-testify-about-their-failure-to-protect-children-online
[^32]: Jason Citron, testimony, "Big Tech and the Online Child Sexual Exploitation Crisis," hearing before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, January 31, 2024. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/2024-01-31-testimony-citron
[^33]: "Inside the 'Private and Confidential' Conservative Group That Promises to 'Crush Liberal Dominance,'" *ProPublica*, March 15, 2023.
[^34]: David B. Rivkin Jr., Baker & Hostetler, letter to Senators Richard J. Durbin and Sheldon Whitehouse, July 25, 2023, responding to the committee's letter of July 11, 2023. https://levin-center.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2023-7-25-Leo-counsels-ltr-to-Senate-Judiciary-declining-to-produce-requested-information.pdf
[^35]: Testimony of Neil M. Barofsky, Independent Ombudsperson for Credit Suisse AG, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, "The Truth Revealed: Hidden Facts Regarding Nazis and Swiss Banks," February 3, 2026. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/95317009-9c96-3e8f-f63d-04b7f29ef02f/2026-02-03_Testimony_Barofsky.pdf
[^36]: Senator Richard J. Durbin, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, July 18, 2025. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/2025-07-18-rjd-letter-to-ag-bondi-re-epstein?download=1
[^37]: Senator Richard J. Durbin, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, letter to FBI Director Kash Patel, July 18, 2025. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/2025-07-18-rjd-letter-to-fbi-director-patel-re-epstein?download=1
[^38]: Epstein Files Transparency Act, Public Law 119-38, 139 Stat. 656, sections 2 and 3, approved November 19, 2025. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ38/pdf/PLAW-119publ38.pdf
[^39]: Pamela J. Bondi, Attorney General, and Todd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General, letter to the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House Committees on the Judiciary, "Epstein Files Transparency Act: Section 3 Report to Congress," February 14, 2026, pp. 1-6. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1434856/dl ; coverage: "Justice Department lists hundreds of prominent people named in Epstein files in letter to Congress," *CNN*, February 15, 2026. https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/15/politics/doj-epstein-files-prominent-people