Since you refer to the Deputy National Security Advisor, it's worth pointing out that a couple of days later the White House felt it necessary to back away from his comments and to say: John, in his remarks, wasn't referring to the NYPD surveillance. Of course he was, but they had to say he wasn't because he had misspoken. Rather, he was stating that everyone in the counterterrorism and law enforcement community must make sure that we are doing things consistent with the law. In other words, Mr. Brennan was out of bounds, and the White House had to walk that back. So I wouldn't, if I were you, choose his endorsement of these NYPD activities as the best argument against my amendment.
Steven Holt: “Since you refer to the Deputy National Security Advisor, it's worth pointing out that a couple of days later the White…”
Share
More from Steven Holt
I ask my colleagues to join me in welcoming Imam Hamad Ahmad Chebli, the Imam of the Islamic Society of Central Jersey in South Brunswick, New Jersey. Imam Chebli has been both a friend and an ambassador of Islam to me and many others in…
Others on the floor are recounting Representative John Dingell, Jr.'s historic legislative record, his breathtaking parliamentary skills, and his powerful advocacy. I won't repeat all of that here. But I would like to say something about…
I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Page 2, line 3, strike ``(a) Requiring Decisional Transparency With Affected States.--''. Beginning at page…