The House Judiciary Committee has asked Attorney General Eric Holder to outline any plans for changes to the Office of the Pardon Attorney in the wake of a ProPublica investigation that found white applicants were nearly four times as likely to receive a presidential pardon as minorities.

The committee’s inquiries into the Justice Department office were included at the top of a long list of questions from Republican and Democratic members following Holder’s appearance before the panel in December to testify on other matters.

The pardon-related questions were written by Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., who serves as ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security and represents a district where African-Americans make up more than half the population. “I am troubled by recent reports outlining persistent and significant problems at the Office of the Pardons (sic) Attorney,” Scott said in a statement to ProPublica. Scott said he is “awaiting a response” from Holder.

Each year, the pardon office sifts through hundreds of requests for presidential pardons, selecting a few for the president’s signature. The vast majority of applications are discarded by the pardon attorney and never seen by the White House.

At his confirmation hearing in January 2009, Holder spoke at length about presidential pardons and lessons he had learned while serving as deputy attorney general during the presidency of Bill Clinton. “I think we have to work to improve the pardon process within the Department of Justice,” Holder told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In his questions to Holder, Scott wrote that ProPublica’s stories on pardons, co-published with The Washington Post, showed “significant and persistent problems within the Office of the Pardon Attorney. You testified when you were confirmed that you would study the problems with the clemency advisory process and fix them. Please let us know what you have found and what changes you have made or plan to make,” Scott wrote.

Holder, who became embroiled in the pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich at the end of the Clinton administration, declined repeated requests from ProPublica to be interviewed about the pardons process. His deputy, James Cole, has also declined interview requests.

Justice Department spokeswoman Laura Sweeney said the agency has received the questions “and will respond accordingly.” Sweeney said the department is continuing to evaluate ProPublica’s statistical analysis showing a racial disparity in pardons. During his two-term presidency, George W. Bush pardoned 189 people, including seven African-Americans. President Obama has pardoned 22 people, including two minorities.

ProPublica’s analysis also showed that married applicants were twice as likely as single applicants to be pardoned and that an applicant with congressional support was three times as likely to succeed. Scott specifically inquired about the effect of political support on pardons.

Known as “Questions For Response,” the committee’s lengthy list of inquiries, which included questions on a variety of Justice Department issues and programs, was sent to Holder on Jan. 20. The questions will be made public and entered into the committee record along with Holder’s answers once they are received.

Scott provided his questions regarding pardons to ProPublica.

Questions for Attorney General Eric Holder

Following are questions about the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney sent to Attorney General Eric Holder by the House Judiciary Committee:

• On December 3, the Washington Post printed an article that reported significant and persistent problems within the Office of the Pardon Attorney. You testified when you were confirmed that you would study the problems with the clemency advisory process and fix them. Please let us know what you have found and what changes you have made or plan to make.
• It has been reported that the pardon attorney no longer assigns commutation cases to staff attorneys, and does not write a recommendation in the large majority of these cases.
• How does this fulfill the Department’s responsibility to advise the president about the merits of each case?
• Doesn’t this make the commutation process meaningless for most applicants?
• How can the pardon attorney himself conduct a meaningful review of thousands of commutation petitions?
• Even if most of these should be denied, if no one is really looking at them, how do you know each one is without merit?
• We can all agree that no system is perfect. The legal system is no exception. There are mistakes. The Constitution gives the president a role in fixing such mistakes. How does this procedure help the president do that?
• How does the pardon office identify the rare exception that deserves a closer look? Political support? Media attention? If so, is that the best way 2014 the most fair way 2014 to make these decisions?

by Dafna Linzer ProPublica, Jan. 25, 2012, 12:57 p.m.

Image Courtesy of   http://www.flickr.com/photos/usdagov/

The article House Panel Queries Attorney General About Pardon Office appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Last week, ProPublica and NPR raised questions about a risky investment strategy at Freddie Mac that would pay off if homeowners stayed trapped in expensive mortgages. It’s just the latest example of how government-owned Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have frustrated many by not putting homeowners first.

Fannie and Freddie are required to help homeowners while earning profits so they can pay back the taxpayers who bailed them out. Here is our guide to the little-known federal regulator, Edward DeMarco, ultimately in charge of the two companies. You may have never heard of him, but as The Washington Post put it, he’s “the most powerful man in housing policy.”

The basics

In the summer of 2008, as part of a larger economic stimulus bill amid the subprime mortgage crisis, President George W. Bush created the Federal Housing Finance Agency, combining several agencies overseeing housing policy, and increasing regulation of government-sponsored enterprises like Fannie and Freddie. When the government bailed out Fannie and Freddie a few months later, the FHFA took charge of them.

DeMarco, a lifelong regulator, was named the acting head of the FHFA roughly a year after the bailout when his Bush-appointed predecessor stepped down. Obama nominated a consumer-friendly replacement for DeMarco in October 2010, but Republicans blocked him. (Republican opposition to Obama’s nominee for DeMarco’s successor stemmed in part from concerns that he would push banks and others too far to help homeowners, unfairly rewarding reckless borrowers.)

As head of the FHFA, DeMarco has a three-part mission: to promote the soundness of Fannie and Freddie, and to support affordable housing and a stable and liquid mortgage market (in other words, to expand access to home ownership loans and make it easier to buy and sell mortgages).

The last two goals, though, can clash with the fact that under the bailout, DeMarco is the “conservator” of Freddie and Fannie, meaning he has to protect their finances for the benefit of their shareholders. (And the majority shareholder is now the federal government.) According to The Washington Post’s Brad Plumer and Ezra Klein, there is “a conflict tucked deep into DeMarco’s job description: The head of the FHFA is stuck between the narrow needs of Fannie and Freddie and the broader needs of the housing market.”

DeMarco has focused almost solely on that first goal, telling Congress many times that “as conservator, FHFA has a statutory responsibility to preserve and conserve the enterprises’ assets.” In plainer terms, he told NPR last week that his role is to “make sure Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac undertake activities that don’t cause further losses for the American taxpayers.”

DeMarco has strongly asserted his independence, insisting that he is promoting needed fiscal discipline. (He did not respond to our latest requests for comment on his role with the FHFA).

Clashes with Congress and Obama

Democrats and Obama administration officials have been frustrated with DeMarco, saying the FHFA’s narrow focus on Fannie and Freddie’s health has hurt the housing market.

The Obama administration has repeatedly tried to push principal reduction 2014 reducing the size of a borrower’s mortgage 2014 as a way to help homeowners, especially those with homes worth less than their mortgages. But as ProPublica and others have reported, time and again, Fannie and Freddie wouldn’t participate: a crippling problem, since the two companies own or guarantee about half of the country’s mortgages.

Last month, the administration unveiled yet another plan to encourage principal reduction, but a former administration adviser called DeMarco “the boulder” in the way of making it happen.

DeMarco says principal reduction could cost taxpayers $100 billion. Some economists counter that while principal reductions might lead to a short-term hit for Fannie and Freddie, it would ultimately result in fewer underwater mortgages, fewer foreclosures and a healthier housing market 2014 all good for Fannie and Freddie’s bottom line.

On another administration plan, to allow more borrowers to refinance at lower rates, DeMarco shifted somewhat toward the White House’s position. He agreed to lift some fees on refinancing and make it easier to qualify. Freddie Mac told ProPublica in a statement that it has helped more than 830,000 families refinance, but as we noted, critics say that the refinancing effort could be helping millions more.

As DeMarco told Politico, he’s been no “particular friend” of banks. He brought a massive lawsuit against 17 banks, alleging fraud over $200 billion in toxic mortgages sold to Fannie and Freddie. The case is ongoing.

DeMarco is also charged with helping Fannie and Freddie go gently into the night. As part of their bailout, the two companies are supposed to wind down their operations. And just as DeMarco has resisted Democratic calls for more aggressive help for homeowners, he’s also pushed back against Republican calls to spin off the companies more quickly. He’s also rejected GOP plans to cap executive pay at Fannie and Freddie.

Why he’s still there

Last week, DeMarco described his job as a “balancing act.” It’s certainly thankless. While Democrats have called for DeMarco’s head, the FHFA is an independent agency, meaning the Obama administration can’t just get rid of him over policy disputes such as his stance on refinancing or principal reduction.

He could also be replaced if Obama decides to offer another nominee and the Senate confirms the choice. Barring that, DeMarco will likely remain where he is for some time, walking his own line on Fannie and Freddie’s contradictory mission.

by Cora Currier ProPublica, Feb. 6, 2012, 4:14 p.m.

The article Meet the Obscure Federal Regulator Who’s Not Helping Homeowners appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.