Friday, April 28, 2017

CLINTON GRAND JURY PROBE COVERED UP?




Judicial Watch is reporting that the FBI convened a Grand Jury in 2016 to investigate Hillary Clinton, but that it was kept under wraps, and its existence has been disclosed only now, because of a response to "... Judicial Watch’s lawsuit seeking to force Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to take steps to 'recover emails of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton' and other U.S. Department of State employees (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Rex Tillerson (No. 1:15-cv-00785))..."

According to JW, the lawsuit was originally filed against then-Secretary of State John Kerry.  The Trump State Department filing includes details of the agency’s continuing refusal to refer the Clinton email issue to the Justice Department, as the law requires.

 Judicial Watch asserted that:
"...State Department documents including a declaration from FBI Special Agent E.W. Priestap, the supervisor of the agency’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email activities ...[states] ... that the former secretary of state was the subject of a grand jury investigation related to her BlackBerry email accounts ..."
The report says that FBI Special Agent Priestap declared  under penalty of perjury that the FBI “obtained Grand Jury subpoenas related to the Blackberry e-mail accounts, which produced no responsive materials, as the requested data was outside the retention time utilized by those providers.”
"...On April 30, 2015, Judicial Watch sued Kerry after the State Department failed to take action on a letter sent to Kerry “notifying him of the unlawful removal of the Clinton emails and requesting that he initiate enforcement action pursuant to the [Federal Records Act],” including working through the Attorney General to recover the emails ... After initially being dismissed by the district court, Judicial Watch’s lawsuit was revived on appeal by a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on December 27, 2016..."
Judicial Watch President, Tom Fitton raised questions about a possible cover-up, even under the new Trump administration:

"...The FBI convened a grand jury to investigate Hillary Clinton in 2016. Why is this information being released only now?  And it is disturbing that the State Department, Justice Department and FBI are still trying to protect Hillary Clinton.  President Trump needs to clean house at all these agencies..."



More:

Vanguard of Freedom NEWS

RED CLIX HEADLINERS

Vanguard of Freedom PERSPECTIVES

ADVANCE OF FREEDOM













Monday, March 27, 2017

PODESTA-GATE?

Senior Investigative Reporter for the Daily Caller News Foundation, Richard Pollock, has posted a story that alleges Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's 2016 national campaign chairman, John Podesta, "...may have violated federal law by failing to disclose the receipt of 75,000 shares of stock from a Kremlin-financed company when he joined the Obama White House in 2014.

According to Pollock:
"...Joule Unlimited Technologies — financed in part by a Russian firm —  originally awarded Podesta 100,000 shares of stock options when in 2010 he joined that board along with its Dutch-based entities: Joule Global Holdings, BV and the Stichting Joule Global Foundation ... When Podesta announced his departure from the Joule board in January 2014 to become President Obama’s special counsellor, the company officially issued him 75,000 common shares of stock ... The Schedule B section of the federal government’s form 278 which — requires financial disclosures for government officials — required Podesta to 'report any purchase, sale or exchange by you, your spouse, or dependent children…of any property, stocks, bonds, commodity futures and other securities when the amount of the transaction exceeded $1,000.' ..."

Pollock says Podesta’s form 278 Schedule B is blank regarding his receipt of any stock from any company, and he says:
"...The same year Podesta joined Joule, the company agreed to accept 1-Billion-Rubles — or $35 million — from Rusnano, a state-run and financed Russian company with close ties to President Vladimir Putin ... Anatoly Chubais, the company CEO and two other top Russian banking executives worked together with Podesta on the Joule boards. The board met six times a year ... Ron Hosko, a former FBI assistant director said because of the Kremlin backing, it was essential Podesta disclose the financial benefits he received from the company..."

According to Pollock, Hosko told the Daily Caller News Foundation:
"...I think in this case where you’re talking about foreign interests and foreign involvement, the collateral interest with these disclosure forms is put in the forefront of full disclosure of any foreign interest that you may have ... It’s a troubled question if you deliberately omit this information on the form ... Were you completely truthful on this form that you filled out, yes or no? ... "

Pollock adds Hosko's concerns that Podesta's failure to report this information could "... become a counterintelligence concern for America..."

Here are additonal salient points that Pollock highlights:


  • *Podesta took possession of the stock in January 2014, the same month he entered the White House
  • *The existence of the 75,000 shares of Joule stock was first revealed by the Government Accountability Institute report issued last year.  But Podesta didn’t pocket all the shares. Correspondence from Podesta to Joule instructed the firm to transfer only 33,693 shares to Leonidio Holdings, a brand-new entity he incorporated only on December 20, 2013, about ten days before he entered the White House.
  • *A January 4, 2014 letter to Joule corporate secretary Mark Solakian, Podesta requested the transfer to Leonidio of 25,146 shares of series C stock and 8,547shares of Series C-II. The letter was released by WikiLeaks last October.


The specific violation of the law, Pollock reports, is this:
"...Title 5 of the U.S. Code stipulates the U.S. Attorney General can file a civil action 'against any individual who knowingly and willfully falsifies or who knowingly and willfully fails to file or report any information that such individual is required to report.' The federal penalty can be up to $50,000 per count..."

And he says a lobbyist for the liberal group "Public Citizen," founded by Ralph Nader, told him that  "...Podesta should certainly have been more upfront in filling this out.  Clearly, it should have been fully disclosed ... That’s the point of the personal financial disclosure forms, especially for anyone entering the White House ... Unfortunately, the office of government ethics ... [ ... 'which is supposed to monitor the accuracy of financial disclosure forms ...' ] ... has no authority to make anyone do anything ... "


Pollock alleges that the Office of Government Ethics is politically biased, citing examples of accusing President Donald Trump of conflicts of interest violations, while ignoring Trump political opponents' infractions.

Podesta, however, is charging that "...there was a “failing” by mainstream media to protect American democracy during the 2016 presidential election..."  because "...The fact that there was substantiation that the Russians had hacked my emails, the DNC emails, that Wikileaks was an instrument of an attempt by Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation to undermine our democracy, that could have been reflected in the press and I don’t believe it was..."

This story by Ben Kew over at Breitbart quotes Podesta:  "...The [mainstream media] decided it was more interesting, maybe more titillating, to get into the kinda campaign gossip which was what those emails were..." referring to the Wikileaks disclosure of Podesta emails.




....

Richard Pollock Report @ DCNF

Ben Kew report @ Breitbart

Vanguard of Freedom / Advance of Freedom @ Facebook

More: Vanguard of Freedom News









Wednesday, March 22, 2017

JW: GOV. MUST PROBE CLINTON UNSECURE SERVER USE...

The government watch-dog group, Judicial Watch, has filed a lawsuit against the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of State, to force them to conduct "...as required by law, an assessment and prepare a report on how and whether Hillary Rodham Clinton’s email practices as U.S. Secretary of State damaged national security..."

According to a media dispatch released yesterday, the suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and cites the requirement in Intelligence Community Directive (“ICD”) 732, issued on June 27, 2014, that a damage assessment be conducted whenever there is “an actual or suspected unauthorized disclosure or compromise of classified national intelligence that may cause damage to U.S. national security.”

Judicial Watch cites a statement by James Comey last July regarding the use of an unsecure email account while conducting official State Department business:

"...From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 emails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification..."

JW asserts that despite the FBI findings and the requirements of Intelligence Community Directive 732, On or about September 14, 2016, ODNI announced that no Intelligence Community-wide damage assessment into Secretary Clinton’s email practices would be conducted and that no individual Intelligence Community member would conduct such an assessment:

The government watch-dog group says it has made repeated requests for information concerning any ODNI investigation of Clinton's email practices:
On September 16, 2016, Judicial Watch sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to ODNI seeking access to records about the decision not to conduct the required assessment.
When ODNI failed to respond to the request within the time required by FOIA, Judicial Watch filed suit. As of the date of this complaint, ODNI still has not produced any responsive records.
On January 10, 2017, Judicial Watch sent a letter to then-Director Clapper, National Counterintelligence Executive Evanina, and then-Secretary John Kerry formally requesting that “the damage assessment required by ICD 732 be commenced without further delay.”
Judicial Watch says their requests have been largely ignored, and is asking the court to order the government to conduct the required assessment and prepare a report in accordance with the relevant law.

JW President Tom Fitton said:
"...The Obama administration conspired with Hillary Clinton regarding her emails, so it is no surprise that Obama officials wouldn’t want to hold her to account for her mishandling of classified materials ... This lawsuit is an opportunity for the Trump administration to get back to basics on the Clinton email scandal and find out what damage was done to our national security as a result of her illicit email practices..."
In its statement, Judicial Watch said:  "...In addition to the ODNI and the State Department, the suit names Michael Dempsey in his official capacity as acting director of national intelligence, William Evanina in his official capacity as national counterintelligence executive, and Rex W. Tillerson in his official capacity as U.S. secretary of state..."


Comment on FACEBOOK

Subscribe to Vanguard of Freedom







Trump Transition Team WAS Bugged

(Breaking News):


Conversations of President Donald Trump's transition team were collected by intelligence officials, and the information about the personnel and the content of those conversations were disseminated, multiple news sources are reporting.

One report from Todd Shepherd of the Washington Examiner says that the conversations "...appeared to be collected 'legally' in the course of 'normal, foreign surveillance..."

The report quotes House Intel Chair, Devin Nunes saying:

"... I have seen intelligence reports that clearly show that the President-elect and his team were, I guess at least monitored and disseminated out in intelligence, in what appears to be raw — or, I shouldn't say raw — intelligence recording channels ...

The report says Nunes is asserting that the information was legally brought to him by people who thought the Intelligence Committee ought to have the information, and Nunes said most of the incidental collection he viewed appeared to happen in November, December and January, the transition months for the Trump presidency.

Shepherd reports:
"...Nunes' disclosure came just two days after the committee held its first open hearing on the investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 election. In that hearing, FBI Director Jim Comey disclosed that the bureau was investigating Russian influence in the election, and that included potential 'cooperation' by the Trump campaign with Russia ... In Wednesday's press conference, Nunes said he was surprised and 'alarmed' by the new discovery. But he also said he doesn't have enough information to say whether any intelligence was collected on Trump or his team beyond routine foreign surveillance. He said he would try to gather more evidence and material that might definitively answer those questions..."
Another report from Bloomberg's Billy House and Margaret Talev says that Nunes was "...troubled by the collection -- which he said was part of unrelated foreign surveillance -- and the fact that the intelligence community reported the names of transition team members internally..."

This report quotes Nunes saying,  "...I’m actually alarmed by it ... Details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in an intelligence community report ..."  It adds that he didn't know if Trump's own communications were intercepted.

According to House and Talev, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer responded to the news saying "... I do think this is a startling revelation..."

Julie Pace and Deb Riechmann of the Associated Press said the type of surveillance used "... sometimes includes the name of an American that the foreigner is speaking to or about. When this happens, intelligence analysts are obliged to hide or 'minimize' the name of the American, unless knowing the American's name is necessary to understanding the foreign intelligence described in the report..."

According to Pace and Riechmann:
"...Nunes said the names of Trump associates were 'unmasked' after the incidental collection, though he did not identify those aides. Those aides are believed to include Michael Flynn, who was fired as White House national security adviser after misleading Vice President Mike Pence and other top officials about his contacts with Russia's ambassador to the United States ... Nunes would not say how he had received the new information ... Nunes notably did not appear alongside Rep. Adam Schiff, the intelligence committee's top Democrat. A Schiff spokesman said Nunes had not informed his Democratic counterpart before disclosing the new information publicly..."

Numerous news sources, media pundits and talking heads until now have asserted that there is no evidence that Trump was wiretapped, but this new revelation appears to contradict those claims.



comment on FACEBOOK

Subscribe to Vanguard of Freedom







Thursday, March 16, 2017

RUSSIAN BANK ASKS FOR DEPT OF JUSTICE PROBE...



Circa News says that a Russian bank has reported to U.S. authorities that mysterious communications resumed recently between one of its computers and an email server tied to President Trump’s business empire, and it has developed evidence the new activity may be the work of a hacker trying to create a political hoax.  Reporters John Solomon and Sara Carter said today:
"...  Alfa Bank is asking the U.S. Justice Department for help solving the mystery and pledged its full cooperation ... Alfa wants U.S. authorities to help unmask a computer inside the United States that it believes has been used to launch cyberattacks spoofing the appearance of a backdoor communication channel between Moscow and America’s 45th president, according to a source directly familiar with the bank’s request ... The bank believes 'these malicious attacks are designed to create the false impression that Alfa Bank has a secretive relationship with the Trump Organization,' the source said, speaking on condition of anonymity..."
This story was featured on the Sean Hannity radio show on Sirius XM radio (satellite radio) today during which a Circa News reporter explained the unprecedented development, in which a foreign government's entity (Alfa Bank) is requesting the American government's Department of Justice to open an investigation into what it alleges amounts to a hacking of its computer servers.  From their web site report:
"...Alfa Bank has insisted since media stories began appearing last fall about the computer communications -- known as Domain Name Server lookups -- that it has never had a relationship to Trump or any of his companies and that any computer connections between the two parties’ computers were innocuous. The resumption of the computer pings started last month, and Alfa’s cybersecurity experts traced evidence that the activity was actually being spoofed -- or hacked --through a third party from a masked computer address inside the United States ..."
According to Solomon and Carter, "... The attacks attempted to trigger verification signals between Alfa Bank and a server associated with the Trump Organization ... The source said the spoofing attempt is equivalent to someone in the U.S. sending an empty envelope to the Trump Towers but putting on the envelope a return address in Russia, causing the Trump server to falsely return the communication back to Moscow ... The source cautioned it does not yet have evidence that the same activity occurred between last May through September, causing the generation of the first server pings that computer scientists reported last fall might be evidence of secret communications between Trump and Russia ... Alfa’s working hypothesis about those earlier connections had been routine computer communications caused when an email server responds to commercial spam mail. The new evidence may lead to a re-evaluation of that conclusion, the source said..."

The report suggests that someone in the U.S. is attempting to create surreptitiously, a link between Russia and Trump, presumably to create a "smoking gun," that would implicate a Russia-Trump connection, as is being alleged by "mainstream" media outlets, Trump critics, and his detractors.

One of the reporters, Sara Carter, appeared on Fox's Sean Hannity show, several days ago, during which she said that an Indiana University professor L. Jean Camp, a recognized expert whose work includes federal research on the security of Internet-connected devices, became a spokesperson last fall for a loose group of computer researchers who reported they had detected a series of communications between a commercial email server registered at Trump’s office in New York City and a server at Alfa Bank in Russia.

According to Carter, Camp was dissatisfied with the tepid attention the FBI and the news media were giving to information her group had provided that she alleged connected Trump and Russia and made her concerns public on Twitter:
"... Camp’s name surfaced in stories just before and after the election, raising the concerns she and her colleagues had about the potential connections between the two servers, which were captured between May 1, 2016 and mid-September. The first stories emerged in late October and early November, just days before Trump defeated Clinton ... 'These organizations are communicating in a way designed to block other people out,' Camp was quoted in a late October article in Slate. Other scientists shared her intrigue about the data but also acknowledged there could be a more innocent explanation for the computer communications..."
Carter, revealed, however, that Camp's alleged Trump-Russia connections may be tainted with political bias.  "... Federal Election Commission records state Camp made a total of 22 small contributions in 2016 to Clinton’s presidential campaign totaling $1,547. The first was recorded on April 23, 2016, and the last on Election Day. The records list earlier donations totaling $1,150 to Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, as well as smaller amounts to other liberal causes, like MoveOn.org’s political action committee and the Democratic National Committee. Camp confirmed the donations by phone..."

As recently as about a week ago, Carter reports, "... FBI officials have not found any evidence of criminal collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, aimed at influencing the outcome of the 2016 election. Intelligence officials delivered a similar message to congressional leaders in recent days..."

Comment HERE

SUBSCRIBE











Tuesday, November 29, 2016


From the Judiciary Committee comes this:
"...In 2010, the mayor of the City of New Orleans requested the Justice Department to “reform” the NOPD [New Orleans Police Department].  In 2012, officials at DOJ’s Civil Rights Division sued the city for alleged civil rights violations, resulting in a consent decree joined by the parties..."
DOJ investigators concluded that there were strong indications that the New Orleans Police Department was involved in violations, discriminatory practices that included racial, ethnic, and LGBT bias, and that there was a failure to provide critical police services to language minority communities, thus the suit.  To resolve the issue a consent decree was issued, but there were mandates that also prohibited inquiries by local law enforcement as to suspects' immigration status.
"... As part of the consent decree, NOPD officers were prevented from considering an individual’s immigration status when performing their law enforcement duties.  In February 2016, the NOPD enacted written policies pursuant to the consent decree that prevent officers from responding to requests by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) regarding criminal aliens in custody, except in very limited circumstances. The Justice Department reviewed and approved those policies prior to their enactment by the NOPD, even though they appear to be in violation of federal law. And despite these concerning policies, the NOPD still continues to receive Department of Justice grant funds..."
Earlier this year (May) the Judiciary Committe wanted to know from Attorney General Loretta Lynch why the Justice Department wanted to make New Orleans a sanctuary city. Specifically they were concerned that the DOJ sought and obtained a consent decree in federal court requiring the New Orleans Police Department to adopt policies that prohibit police officers from considering an individual's immigration status when performing their law enforcement duties.  The committee stated that it was troubled by policies that mandated that:
"...NOPD members shall not make inquiries into an individual’s immigration status ... The enforcement of civil federal immigration laws falls exclusively within the authority of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) ....The NOPD shall not engage in, assist, or support immigration enforcement except as follows: (a) In response to an articulated, direct threat to life or public safety; or (b) When such services are required to safely execute a criminal warrant or court order issued by a federal or state judge ... Unless authorized ... members are not permitted to accept requests by ICE or other agencies to support or assist in immigration enforcement operations . . .   In the event a member receives a request to support or assist in a civil immigration enforcement action[,] he or she shall report the request to his or her supervisor, who shall decline the request and document the declination in an interoffice memorandum to the Superintendent through the chain of command..."
The Committee told Loretta Lynch that it was outrageous that DOJ would seek a consent decree to actually inhibit the ability of the federal government to enforce federal law:
"...By hindering the ability of ICE to apprehend criminal aliens, DOJ consciously disregards the safety and security of the American public by enabling the release of these criminals back into our communities to commit more crimes.  It also places ICE agents and officers at greater risk when they are forced to arrest these criminal aliens who are no longer in a secure jail facility, but in public places where they can more readily escape or access a weapon.  In addition, the consent decree may be interpreted to require NOPD to adopt policies that require its officers to violate federal law.  The policy statements referenced above could be read to require the violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which provides that no person or agency may prohibit or restrict a federal, state, or local agency from sending, requesting, receiving, or exchanging information about an individual’s immigration status with ICE..."
The committee submitted an extensive inquiry list to the Attorney General regarding this and held a hearing to investigate the issue.  According to Chairman of the Committee Bob Goodlatte, the Dept. of Justice "consent decree" was a shocking action on the part of DOJ.  Good Latte asserted:
"...The chief law enforcement agency of the federal government acted to impede the enforcement of federal law.  In addition, the policy appears to be in direct violation of section 1373.  Yet, it was reviewed and approved in advance by DOJ’s Civil Rights Division.  This appears to be another example of the current DOJ’s cavalier disregard for the Constitution and the law ... Chairman Gowdy and I sent a letter to the Attorney General in May, asking that she explain how the NOPD policy complies with section 1373 and requesting that she provide communications with New Orleans concerning the development of the policy ... DOJ’s response was almost completely nonresponsive ... The DOJ Inspector General issued a report in May that expressed concern that ambiguous language in some sanctuary policies may cause local officers to comply with such policies in a way that would violate section 1373 ... The Inspector General noted that, 'unless the understanding of NOPD’s employees is that they are not prohibited or restricted from sharing immigration status with ICE, the policy would be inconsistent with section 1373.' ..."
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Goodlatte continues:
"... I have asked for the training materials that NOPD gave to its officers to ensure their understanding of section 1373.  I have been provided with nothing.  This leads to a troubling possibility that through a lack of training, NOPD has in practice violated section 1373 ..."
Goodlatte pointed out collusion between then New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu and the Lynch Department of Justice to turn New Orleans into a sanctuary city.  At the hearing, no administration officials denied that this was the case.  New Orleans P.D. was in danger of losing law enforcement federal grants in excess of $2 million because of the section 1373 violations, however, we have learned that after the hearing was scheduled, the DOJ changed that part of the mandate.

According to Goodlatte:
"...Finally, just four days before this hearing, after this committee’s persistent efforts to expose this disturbing matter and demand action, DOJ informed the Committee that NOPD had revised its sanctuary policy ... Specifically, the NOPD policy now states that it is to be construed in accordance with section '1373(a).'  On that basis, DOJ has represented to the federal court and this Committee that the policy now complies with section 1373 ... Unfortunately, this coordinated effort by DOJ and the City of New Orleans to preserve the patina of legality of their consent decree clearly fails.  Section 1373(b) prohibits jurisdictions from restricting their employees from 'requesting' information from ICE, 'maintaining' such information, and 'exchanging' information with other agencies.  Nowhere does the revised policy require compliance with this subsection ... A NOPD officer that arrests an individual who is believed to be illegally present is most likely going to contact ICE to 'request' information regarding that individual’s immigration status.  However, the revised NOPD policy expressly prohibits NOPD officers from making 'inquiries into an individual’s immigration status.' ... DOJ and NOPD have provided no evidence that NOPD in practice has complied with section 1373.  And they have provided no training materials showing that officers have or will be properly trained regarding compliance with section 1373 ..."
So in the absence of oversight by Congress, the Obama Justice Department essentially colluded with a mayor to create a Sanctuary city to fulfill the requirements of their political agenda in violation of federal law,  to the detriment of the security of that municipality, and  the restriction of law enforcement officers from carrying out their appointed duties.  Sanctuary cities exist, however, this case reveals that federal agents, time, energy,  and taxpayer funds  have been used to create a sanctuary city with a Department of Justice willfully and purposely violating the very laws it is supposed to enforce.

As of this date no sanctions, no reprimands, and no penalties have been issued, nor has anyone been held accountable for the violations.

VIDEO OF JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING





ISSA MOVES TO CLIP OBAMA "MIDNIGHT RULES"

A new law has been introduced in the House of Representatives, and has now gone to the Senate for consideration, that aims to curb "last minute" Executive Orders by the President, referred to as "Midnight Rules."  

The Bill, authored by Congressman Darrell Issa, will enhance congressional powers to undo "rules" issued by an outgoing President at the end of his term to ostensibly advance his agenda beyond the end of his administration.  Current law allows Congress to do this, but permits legislators to consider and take action on such rules only one at a time.  When an entire package of rules are issued, the logistics to address each rule individually can be a formidable task for a new congress at the beginning of a new administration.

The Midnight Rules Relief Act (H.R. 5982) is set to remedy this situation. In a report accompanying the legislation, submitted by Representative Bob Goodlate (and others), Goodlatte makes the case for H.R. 5982 including the following:

"...midnight rules can be issued to thwart or blunt an electoral mandate issued by the voters, as a defeated Administration or party leaves office. A wave of midnight regulations also can overwhelm Congress' ability to check regulatory overreach through CRA disapproval resolutions, oversight and other means. Under current law, for example, CRA resolutions can disapprove only one regulation at a time, rather than en bloc to meet a body of end-of-term regulations. Outgoing Administrations, moreover, may be less sensitive to Congress' oversight and appropriations authority, since they can issue regulations and leave office before Congress can respond comprehensively through these tools. Both Congress and incoming presidential Administrations can be hindered in the disapproval or rescission of midnight rules by the pressing need to devote congressional and executive resources to the passage and implementation of the electoral mandate given to a new Congress and a newly elected President ... The hurry to complete regulatory activity towards the end of an Administration, moreover, often results in lower quality regulations. Agencies are rushed to complete their work and issue new rules in time, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) review is diminished, and neither agency nor OIRA personnel have sufficiently strong incentives or latitude to conduct searching analyses of whether the rules should or should not be issued or modified, because outgoing Administrations have already made clear that they wish to proceed with the rules..."

While there have been previous attempts at oversight and regulation of "Midnight Rules," the proposed legislation includes language that allows congress to consider nullifying more than one rule at a time. The report says:

"...By reforming this authority to allow en bloc disapprovals, H.R. 5982 offers a powerful way for an incoming Congress, in one fell swoop, to dispose of midnight rules that should be rejected. This efficient and effective means of response, moreover, is highly flexible. There is no constraint on the number of rules that can be included in an en bloc resolution, other than that the rules must be drawn from those submitted within the last 60 legislative days of the prior Congress. If only a handful of midnight rules are objectionable, only they need be included. If larger numbers are objectionable, all of them can be included. The matter is left to the assessment of the succeeding Congress, in light of what the outgoing Administration submitted, what the voters communicated in the election, and what regulations can muster support for inclusion in a successful resolution ... The CRA's current provision for rule-by-rule disapprovals provides only a minimal check on the desires of outgoing Administrations to promulgate problematic midnight rules. The Midnight Rules Relief Act would turn that table entirely. Administrations working under the ``Sword of Damocles'' of a succeeding Congress' disapproval with just one resolution of any or all midnight rules that defied the voters or were otherwise abusive or defective would receive a strong incentive to avoid the promulgation of such rules altogether, and instead focus their resources on the promulgation of rules with the political support and sound design and analysis needed to endure into succeeding Administrations..."

The Goodlatte report affirms that:

"...In the face of tepid Executive Branch discipline and the lack of legislative reform, the potential for midnight rule abuse and misfeasance continues apace. According to the Obama administration's 2016 Spring Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, released June 1, 2016, there are at least $5.3 billion in planned costs in just the period from November to December 2016 ... These include, for example, a final Renewable Fuels Standard and requirements for Systemically Important Financial Institutions.\8\ And, although Administrator Shelanski pledged to curtail the midnight rush of regulation, the trend through the first half of 2016 revealed the typical surge of end-of-term rules. Compared to similar periods during President Clinton and President Bush's tenure, the Obama administration has approved 38 percent more economically significant regulation than at any time since 1996, when the Clinton administration passed through its first midnight rule period ..."

The law, approved by the House, has now gone to the Senate for debate.  After that, the President has final say.  If he vetoes it, Congress may choose to override the veto, providing there is enough support in both houses to do so. But even if the current actors thwart this effort, a new congress and a new administration may then pass the law or a newly drafted piece of legislation that can put period to "rush" legislation, and prevent costly rules that may affect or impede new policies mandated by voters in the recent presidential election.

Congressman Darrell Issa summed it up this way:

“...This bipartisan bill is about reviving the separation of powers to ensure our laws are written by the Representatives we actually vote for – not unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats who are on their way out the door. Presidents of both parties have made habit of enacting scores of last-minute regulations, with little oversight, to sneak in as much of their agenda as possible before the clock runs out on their time in office. The bill helps ensure this President, and any future president, will be held in check and that their policies have the proper level of scrutiny by both Congress and the American people..."