It sounds dangerously close to espionage on members of Congress, their staff, and their supporters, if they think it's for security.
He said that anyone involved in implementing this without making it known to the actual members of Congress should be fired. I am not fond of calling for resignations.
Several Capitol Police intelligence analysts have raised concerns about the practice to the inspector general, according to one of the people who spoke for this story.
In a statement, the Capitol Police defended the practice of searching for public information about people meeting with lawmakers.
The statement said that the more public information we have, the better we can understand what kind of security is needed.
Julie Farnam, a former Department of Homeland Security official, was brought on by the Capitol Police to help run its intelligence unit. According to CNN, Farnam made a number of changes to internal intelligence protocols in the weeks before the Capitol attack.
In the months after the riot, Farnam changed another key process in a way that hasn't been previously reported.
Congressional event assessments are documents put together by analysts in the intelligence division. The process involves the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms, Congress' chambers' internal logistical and security leaders, sharing information with Capitol Police on lawmakers' plans for meetings and events away from the Capitol.
Intelligence division analysts use that information to assess the physical safety risks of large, planned protests, parades, concerts or other events that draw crowds. Analysts filled out a standard template for that assessment.
Farnam changed the template after the Capitol attack. According to a copy reviewed by POLITICO, she directed analysts to look closely at the people meeting privately and publicly with members. The template POLITICO reviewed was not the most recent version according to a Capitol Police spokesman.
POLITICO reviewed a revised template that asked analysts to describe the background of the participants, if known, in addition to basic information about the event.
Intelligence analysts were told to look at social media feeds of event attendees to see if anything may affect the event.
Capitol Police analysts were told to look for information about lawmakers' opponents and their supporters to see if they plan to disrupt the event.
One Capitol Police official told POLITICO that Farnam directed analysts to run background checks on people who were going to meet lawmakers. Capitol Police intelligence analysts were asked to check the social media accounts of staffers when they were listed as attending these meetings.
Analysts were told to look into the ownership of the buildings where Congress met.
The revised template asked if there was a foreign interest in the event location. Is there any permanent delegations or missions in the immediate area?
Analysts were told to give more information about the buildings where Congress met. The intelligence division leadership asked analysts to find out how many rooms were in the buildings, what amenities were available, and their last remodeling.
Analysts were tasked with sifting through tax and real estate records to find out who owned the properties that lawmakers visited. The unit scrutinized a meeting that Sen. Rick Scott held with donors. Analysts looked for foreign contacts in the homeowner and attendees social media accounts.
McKinley Lewis said in a statement that the reports were incredibly disturbing. It is not possible for a government entity to conduct secret investigations into private Americans. The American people want to know what Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi did. Scott thinks the Senate Rules Committee should investigate.
The office had no idea of the level of scrutiny that Capitol Police analysts were conducting regarding the senator.
Multiple donors have been scrutinized by the unit because they met with Steve Scalise. The congressman was not aware of the scrutiny the meetings received.
The House Administration Committee has jurisdiction over chamber security and is chaired by Lofgren.
According to a person familiar with the workings of the intelligence office, Farnam directed analysts to search for any information about event attendees that would cast a member in a negative light. This included looking for information about Hill staff.
We do research like journalists.
The inauguration of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris will take place in Washington, D.C., on January 20, 2021.
In a statement, the Capitol Police said that they seek public information about people meeting with lawmakers as part of their mission.
It is our duty to protect Members of Congress wherever they are. Journalists do research with public information.
The intelligence analysts of Capitol Police look into each person listed as attending an event. The official said that lawmakers ask for intelligence assessments through the House or Senate Sergeants at Arms offices, as well as coordination with local law enforcement, for specific events they plan to attend. The names of attendees are given to the Sergeant at Arms, who shares them with Capitol Police.
Lawmakers who give information to the department may not be aware of the scope of the analysis conducted on their associates, according to the responses from Scott.
The intelligence office made a policy shift in the wake of a violent riot that caused a lot of discussion about congressional security. The inspector general of the Capitol Police has urged the Department to do more to protect lawmakers and to emulate the Secret Service, which conducts checks on the background of those who meet the president.
Civil liberties experts warned that the Capitol Police practice raises the risk of First Amendment violations.
The Brennan Center for Justice's deputy director said the practice is of questionable legality and is a recipe for creating dossiers on people.
Federal law protects against collecting and keeping data about people without a purpose.
Patrick Toomey is a senior staff attorney with the National Security Project of the American Civil Liberties Union.
He said that it raises First Amendment concerns when police set out to monitor people's social media activity without any reason to believe they have engaged in criminal activity. Individuals are coming under scrutiny simply because they are exercising their right to petition members of Congress.
He said that the monitoring may mean that people's protected speech is retained in police files indefinitely.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
