You are viewing this post: Fact Check Is J Prince Jr Going To Jail Fans Believe The Rapper Is Arrested? The 75 Detailed Answer
Are you looking for an answer to the topic “Fact Check Is J Prince Jr Going To Jail Fans Believe The Rapper Is Arrested“? We answer all your questions at the website Bangkokbikethailandchallenge.com in category: Bangkokbikethailandchallenge.com/digital-marketing. You will find the answer right below.
Keep Reading
Is J Prince Jr Going To Jail? The rapper hinted at being arrested in his recent social media post. Here’s everything we know.
J Prince aka James Prince Jr. is a rapper and music artist.
He was born on October 30, 1987 in Houston, Texas. He has American citizenship.
Additionally, his Instagram bio describes him as the CEO of Rap-A-Lot, Mob Ties, and YEMG. His account is verified and has over 398,000 followers.
Fact Check: Is J Prince Jr Going To Jail?
J Prince Jr. fans believe the rapper will be arrested.
On June 17, 2021, J. Prince Jr. shared a cryptic post on his Facebook and Instagram saying he was going away for a while.
He shared a picture with the caption “Going Away Party” on the cover.
In the caption, J Prince vaguely mentioned his difficult situation and sa he loves it when the fake is exposed.
The comments section of his Instagram is filled with words of encouragement from his friends and family.
advertisement
Although the situation seems fishy and suspicious, nothing is clear yet. Even if he is actually arrested, the reason for this is currently unknown.
The rapper has not officially mentioned whether he will be arrested. In addition, the news of his arrest has not yet appeared in the media.
So we can believe that J Prince is not yet incarcerated.
J Prince Jr. Son And Wife
As of now, J Prince Jr. has neither a son nor a wife.
It seems that the rapper is currently single as he has yet to introduce a girl in his life.
Speaking of family, James Prince Jr. is the son of James Prince Sr, the CEO of Rap-A-Lot and boxing executive.
He also has two brothers who go by the names Jas Prince and Baby Jay.
What Is James Prince Jr. Net Worth?
James Prince Jr.’s net worth is estimated at $10 million, according to Pinterest.
However, his verified James Prince Jr. net worth is still under review.
On the other hand, his father J Prince’s net worth is around $45 million.
Tyga Grabs for Gun After Being Dragged Out of Floyd Mayweather’s Birthday Party | TMZ
Tyga Grabs for Gun After Being Dragged Out of Floyd Mayweather’s Birthday Party | TMZ
Tyga Grabs for Gun After Being Dragged Out of Floyd Mayweather’s Birthday Party | TMZ
Images related to the topicTyga Grabs for Gun After Being Dragged Out of Floyd Mayweather’s Birthday Party | TMZ
See some more details on the topic Fact Check Is J Prince Jr Going To Jail Fans Believe The Rapper Is Arrested here:
Fact Check: Is J Prince Jr Going To Jail? Fans Believe The …
Is J Prince Jr. going to jail? The rapper hinted at getting arrested in his recent social media post. Here’s everything we know.
Source: ab.com.tc
Date Published: 12/4/2021
View: 2847
J Prince Says Joe Rogan Is Not Racist – XXL Mag
J Prince says he has forgiven Joe Rogan after veos of Rogan saying the N-word have resurfaced.
Source: www.xxlmag.com
Date Published: 8/11/2022
View: 3823
THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION – GovInfo
There was an investigation involving a man named James Prince. He owns a record company called Rap-A-Lot. He and his associates were believed to be …
Source: www.govinfo.gov
Date Published: 8/9/2021
View: 7125
James Prince Jr. accused of DWI, bringing weapon to county jail
Prince Jr. is charged with DWI and bringing a prohibited item into a correctional facility. Officials sa Prince Jr. was leaving a private …
Source: www.click2houston.com
Date Published: 12/9/2022
View: 6132
J Prince Says Joe Rogan Is Not Racist After Videos of Rogan Saying N-Word Go Viral
J Prince forgives Joe Rogan for saying the N-word.
This afternoon (February 7), J Prince made a post on Instagram stating that Rogan is not a racist and that he has forgiven the podcaster for using the racial slur.
“Joe Rogan is not a racist,” Prince began. “I know this brother. It takes a genuine person to admit when they’re wrong and screwed up a situation.”
He continued, “As you can hear, he did and I forgive him because I never want to become one of those people who are filled with unforgiveness and hatred that we complain about all the time. Let this be an example for others of the sensitivity of the word ‘N***a’ being said by someone other than a N***a lol.”
He included Rogan’s apology video, released last week, in which the podcaster addressed his past use of the n-word. Rogan explained why he chose to use the word in those earlier instances, but ended up calling it an “idiotic statement.”
“I was just trying to be entertaining,” Rogan explained. “I certainly wasn’t trying to be racist. And I certainly would never want to insult anyone for entertainment with something as stupid as racism.”
Below is the supercut video of Rogan saying the N-word that has gone viral.
Before the clips of Rogan saying the N-word surfaced online, Spotify had received increasing public pressure to remove Rogan from their platform, citing misinformation allegedly coming from guests he featured on his podcast.
Rogan responded to the uproar with a first video addressing the misinformation situation.
“I’m just a person who sits down and talks to people and has conversations with them,” he said. “Am I misunderstanding things? Absolutely, I get things wrong, but I try to correct them. Whenever I do something wrong, I try to correct it because I’m interested in telling the truth. I’m interested in finding out what the truth is. And I’m interested in having interesting conversations with people who disagree.”
Spotify has responded that they will not remove Rogan from their platform. However, they added that they would add notices to content that discusses topics such as COVID-19.
Additionally, Spotify CEO Daniel Ek reportedly announced today in an internal memo to employees that the platform will invest $100 million “to license, develop, and monetize music and audio content from historically marginalized groups.”
Ek added that while he denounces what Rogan said, he doesn’t believe his removal is the answer to the problem. “I don’t think silencing Joe is the solution. We should have clear boundaries for content and take action when they’re crossed, but deleting votes is a slippery slope.”
So far, J Prince and T-Pain are the members of the rap community who have spoken out about the Joe Rogan controversy.
– THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION WERE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS SWAYED BY POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS
[House Hearing, 106th Congress] [By US Government Printing Office] THE DRUG ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION: WERE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS INFLUENCED BY POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS? =============================================== === ================== COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM HEARINGS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ DECEMBER 6 AND 7, 2000 __________ Serial Number 106-257 __________ Printed for reference by the Committee on Government Reform Available from the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house http://www.house.gov/reform U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 74-430 WASHINGTON: 2001 ________________________________________________________________________ For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Telephone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chair BENJAMIN A. GILMAN , New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Flo rida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York STEPHEN HORN, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania JOHN L. MICA, Florida PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia CAROLYN B MALONEY, New York DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland MARSHALL “MARK” SANFORD, South DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio Carolina ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH , Illinois BOB BARR, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois DAN MILLER, Florida a JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JIM TURNER, Texas LEE TERRY, Nebraska THOMAS H ALLEN, Maine JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee GREG WALDEN, Oregon JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois DOUG OSE, California —— PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho (Independent) DAVID VITTER, Louisiana Kevin Binger, Staff Director Daniel R. Moll, D Deputy Staff Director James C. Wilson, Chief Counsel Robert A. Briggs, Clerk Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director CONTENTS ———- Page Hearing Held On: December 6, 2000…….. ……….. ……………………… 1 December 7, 2000…….. ………. ……………………… 259 Statement by: Marshall, Donnie R., Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration……… …………………………………. 315 Mercado, Julio, Deputy Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration; Ernest L. Howard, Special Agent in Charge, Houston Field Office, Drug Enforcement Administration; and R.C. Gamble, Chief Inspector, Drug Enforcement Administration ……………………………… … 53 For the record letters, statements, etc. given by: Burton, Hon. Dan, Illinois State Congressman, email dated March 15, 2000……. 62 LaTourette, Hon. Steven C., Ohio State Congressman, letter March 16, 2000……. 68 Marshall, Donnie R., Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, memo dated August 20, 1999……. 330 Ose, Hon. Doug, a California State Congressman: letter dated August 20, 1999…………………………… 38 Letter of 2 November 2000…………………………… 51 Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a California State Representative in Congress: email dated March 14, 2000…………………………… .. 73 Letter dated December 6, 2000…………………………… 267 THE DRUG ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION: WERE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS BEE BY POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS INFLUENCE ? ———- WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2000 House of Representatives, Government Reform Committee, Washington, DC. The Committee met as announced at 10:40 am in Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, with the Hon. Dan Burton (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. Present: Representatives Burton, Gilman, Shays, Horn, LaTourette, Ose, Waxman, Norton, Cummings, Kucinich and Tierney. Staff present: Kevin Binger, Human Resources Manager; James C. Wilson, Chief Counsel; David A. Kass, Assistant Counsel and Member of Parliament; Sean Spicer, communications director; M. Scott Billingsley and Andre Hollis, attorneys; Thomas Bowman and Kristi Remington, senior counsel; Pablo Carrillo, investigative attorney; S. Elizabeth Clay and Nicole Petrosino, professional contributors; Marc Chretien, lead investigative attorney; Gil Macklin, Associate Professional/Investigator; Robert A. Briggs, General Manager; Robin Butler, Office Manager; Michael Canty and Toni Lightle, legislative assistants; Josie Duckett, Assistant Director of Communications; Leneal Scott, computer systems manager; John Sare, Assistant Office Manager; Corinne Zaccagnini, System Administrator; Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director; Kristin Amerling, Assistant Chief Minority Counsel; Michael Yeager, Senior Minority Supervisor; Ellen Rayner, Minority Chief Secretary; and Jean Gosa and Earley Green, Minority Aid Workers. Mr Burton. Good morning If there is a quorum, the Government Reform Committee comes into order. I request unanimous approval that the written opening statements of all members and witnesses be included in the minutes; and without objection, so ordered. I seek unanimous consent to the inclusion of all articles, exhibits, and foreign or tabular material referenced in the record; and without objection, so ordered. I seek unanimous approval that a number of exhibits shared with minority staff prior to the hearing be included in the record; and without objection, so ordered. And I seek unanimous consent that the inquiry into the matter under consideration be conducted in accordance with Section 2(j)(2) of House Rule 11 and Committee Rule 14, in which the chair and the most senior minority member shall allocate time to the committee members as they consider reasonable the questioning must not exceed 60 minutes, divided equally between the majority and the minority. Mr. Wachsmann. Reserve your right, Mr. Chairman, to object to some of the points that you have just raised. Firstly I would like to ask you to postpone the request at the time as we would be moving from the 5 minute rule to half an hour per side and that is leaving us quite a long time before we can ask our questions. But I can’t disagree. If you would just take that back for a minute. And regarding exhibits, I would ask that you amend your unanimous consent request to not include the exhibits in the records until our staff have an opportunity to review them. Mr Burton. The employees haven’t had a chance to look at these exhibits yet? Mr. Wachsmann. Could you also refuse this unanimous approval? Mr Burton. We’re going to hold that, too, and hopefully they can make a decision on this relatively soon while I make my opening statement. Mr. Wachsmann. Hopefully. Mr Burton. I also seek unanimous agreement that the questioning of the matter under consideration be conducted pursuant to clause 2(j)(2) of House Rule 11 and Committee Rule 14, in which the Chair and the most senior minority member shall allocate time to the Committee Council if they so require keep appropriate. And we will defer any action on this until I make my opening statement. Today’s hearing focuses on the war on drugs. In particular, we focus on allegations that a key investigation into drug trafficking was dropped due to political pressure. Of all the things our government does, protecting the public from drug traffickers has to be considered one of the most important. Drug abuse has destroyed countless lives in this country. It’s hard to find a family that hasn’t felt the pain of drug addiction. We spend billions of dollars fighting drug trafficking and prosecuting drug dealers. If there’s one area we don’t want to undermine through partisan politics, it’s the enforcement of our drug laws. Unfortunately, in this case, that is exactly what some have claimed. We do not wish to make any claims about anyone or any individual until we have all the facts. Well, I’m not going to give a long opening statement today because we don’t have all the facts at this point. We tried very hard to get the facts for about a month and a half and as always it was a frustrating experience. The only way to make progress was to call a hearing and issue subpoenas. Perhaps the best way to begin this hearing is to retrace our steps. This summer we heard about an investigation into drug trafficking in Houston, TX. There was an investigation involving a man named James Prince. He owns a record company called Rap-A-Lot. It was believed that he and his associates were large-scale drug dealers. This investigation resulted in more than 20 convictions. There were allegations of political pressure and the Drug Enforcement Administration dropped the investigation. So we asked the DEA for a briefing. In July, the staff were briefed by the head of the DEA’s Houston field office, Mr. Earnest Howard. Mr. Howard assured staff that the DEA investigation was active and ongoing. He was very persuasive, so we didn’t pursue it any further. Then in October we were told there were emails that contradicted what we were told. We asked the DEA to give us the emails. I had a face-to-face meeting with Mr. Marshall, the head of the DEA. They were given to us. The emails flatly contradicted what Mr. Howard was telling us. We have an email dated March 14th from Mr. Marshall to DEA headquarters in Washington. He says: “I understand that the situation between Rap-A-Lot and James Smith, aka James Prince, has only gotten worse. In order to remove any further difficulty in this matter, I have decided that the Houston Department will limit any enforcement against this issue.” He concludes, “Anyway, it’s over; and we’re closing our case on Prince.” The next day, Mr. Howard sent another email to Washington. He says: “Now we are bowing to political pressure anyway. It’s over. The Houston Department will drop all active investigations into Rap-A-Lot, except for those individuals who have already been arrested or charged.” There couldn’t be a more stark contrast between what we read in June and what we read in this one read e-mails, be . Of course we wanted an explanation. We had a hard time getting one. This is not the only time politics may have interfered in this investigation. Last August, one of our colleagues, a congresswoman, got involved. She accused the DEA of molesting Mr. Prince. She asked the Attorney General, General Reno, to investigate; and she got one. Within a month, the DEA had removed lead agent Jack Schumacher from the case and launched an internal investigation into him. Last month we interviewed several local Houston City cops. You’ve been assigned to a joint investigation by Mr. Prince and the DEA. They informed us that they were removed from the case about a month after the Congressmen’s letter arrived. They told us they had been called to a meeting with Special Agent Howard, the field manager. Mr. Howard informed them that the investigation was closed and quoted the Congressman’s letter. Well, something is terribly wrong here. On the one hand, the head of the DEA field office tells us that the investigation is open and leads are being followed up. On the other hand, we are told by everyone else that the investigation was dropped not once, but twice. I asked to interview all the DEA officials involved. I did not get an answer. I asked again. I called the head of the DEA, Mr. Marshall, to ask about his company. He didn’t answer my call and I was told that he and the DEA were ordered not to cooperate with the committee. I was told that the Attorney General had ordered Mr. Marshall not to speak to me. I was also told that an investigation was being conducted by the inspector general and the committee was not to speak to anyone about the investigation. This is inexcusable. We are the United States Congress. We have a duty of care. We are being asked to provide billions of dollars to fund these government agencies. We have to have oversight to make sure money is spent wisely and the law is obeyed, and yet I’ve been told that the head of a large agency like the DEA can’t pick up the phone and talk to a committee chair here in Congress. We couldn’t get any explanation of what was going on. That’s tantamount to telling Congress to just go home and mind its own business and let the executive branch do as it pleases. Well, that’s not how it should work. So I issued subpoenas and called this hearing. We will not make any assumptions about the guilt or innocence of anyone here. We will not make allegations of political interference until we have all the facts. But if there was a significant investigation into drug trafficking and it was dropped for no apparent reason other than politics, then we need to know about it and get the facts across to the American people. We have many unanswered questions. I want to get answers to all questions, so I want to start. Before I yield to my colleague from California, Mr. Waxman, I want to say that the first panel will feature DEA Agent Jack Schumacher and Houston Police Officers Bill Stephens, Larry Jean Allen, and Ralph G. Chaison. Appearing on the second panel are DEA Special Agent in Charge Earnest Howard, DEA Chief Inspector R.C. Gamble and DEA Assistant Administrator Julio Mercado. I hope I spelled that right. DEA Administrator Donnie Marshall had a scheduling conflict for today, so he’ll be showing up at 1 am tomorrow afternoon. I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here, and I give in to Mr. Waxman for his opening statement. Mr. Wachsmann. Thank you Mr. Chairman. The chairman discussed the committee’s investigation into the James Prince Rap-A-Lot recordings on the Dallas Morning News last month. He said the Justice Department is deliberately interfering with the committee’s investigation, accusing “Janet Reno of blocking and I believe obstructing justice for political reasons.” Million to a church, the VP goes to that church, and 2 days later someone says they close the case. Something is wrong. They’re blocking us because they’re afraid it might embarrass the Vice President.” I just want to point out that based on the information the committee has gathered, these allegations are purely speculative. They are also being actively investigated by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice. When the chairman made an impassioned plea a few minutes ago that our committee is not fully cooperating to get all the information that people are talking to us, I just want to point out that it’s not uncommon and usually there the Case in point, the Justice Department is conducting its own investigation, which it doesn’t want a congressional committee to intervene in. They’re conducting an investigation and they don’t want to, and I think they even have a responsibility not to speak to any committee of Congress while that investigation is underway. But we just don’t know all the facts. None of us should jump to conclusions before the facts are in. I hope we use our time productively today to understand what are legitimate questions in this case, but as we move forward, let us be aware that we do not need to complicate or undermine ongoing criminal investigations, particularly when we undermined them for what appeared to be political slanders. And we should also try to avoid naming people associated with this matter who have never been charged or convicted of a crime. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the statements of the witnesses. I know you see this as a way for us to get the facts, and I think we should. Therefore, I will work with you in this regard. You wanted to ask – I don’t know if you will have opening statements from other Members. Mr Burton. Gladly, if you like. Mr. Wachsmann. I have completed my opening speech. I know you asked if we should continue under the 30 minutes for each side. We will not contradict that. Mr Burton. It is so arranged without contradiction. Do other members have opening statements they would like to make or comments? Mr. Horn. Mr. Shays. Mr. LaTourette. Mr Cummings. Mr Cummings. Thank you Mr. Chairman. This hearing raises interesting questions that require clarification, Mr. Chairman. However, I have paused in reviewing the documents for this hearing because the majority keeps trying to blame President Clinton or Vice President Gore no matter what the issue. Later this week we will have our umpteenth hearing over missing emails from the White House. So here we are again. This time, unfortunately, the integrity of one of our colleagues and one member of Congress has been called into question. As you may know, many African American congressmen serve not only their geographic constituencies, but also a national constituency. We often receive requests for help with issues affecting African Americans nationally. Racial profiling in particular is a key issue of concern. I have personally traveled the country and heard these constituents tell me over and over how they often face harassment and intimidation from a group sworn to serve and protect them. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, it will continue. In recent weeks, African American voters in Florida have expressed similar concerns. I have found that the majority of our law enforcement officers serve their community and do a good job. But as the saying goes, one bad apple spoils the bunch. I just wanted to quote from the Congressman’s letter that the Chairman was referring to, just a small portion of the letter, to emphasize what I’m talking about. In that letter, the congressman, speaking about Mr. Prince, says that Mr. Prince alleges that the DEA accused him of illegally earning the profits from his business. In addition, he alleges that he was subjected to racial slurs, an illegal search of his car, and that his customers and workers were stopped and questioned by the DEA without provocation. Mr. Prince has also raised concerns about interference with his right to travel, and he has been stopped numerous times on dark stretches of Texas highways. Put simply, Mr. Prince strongly believes that the Department of Justice must intervene in the DEA’s questionable practices and provide him with the necessary protections to ensure his life and livelihood are not subjected to constant harassment and intimidation. The Congressman continues: I am often contacted by African Americans who feel helpless when confronted with the incidents Mr. Prince describes. The harrowing details of Mr. Prince’s allegations, and my reputation for vigorously pursuing such matters, warrant my giving my best support. She goes on to say that the DEA–that the Attorney General is investigating this matter. So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses to learn more about the investigation, the implications for the future, and how members of Congress can intervene on legitimate matters without becoming involved in the process . Many Thanks. Thank you Mr. Ranking member. Mr Burton. Thank you Mr Cummings. The gentle lady from Washington. Mrs Norton. I’ll try to stay – I’m supposed to speak somewhere in my district – because I need to hear what the evidence is here. I am concerned that the Vice President’s name will be implicated in this matter as, as far as I know, to say that it was marginal at best does a great deal of credit to his standing. That is, if the vice president can go somewhere, as public figures do, and something happens after that and then he gets implicated, it’s calling that circumstantial evidence to increase his probity. So I would like to hear if there is any real evidence of his involvement. I am concerned that a congressman allegedly called and I do not believe that the majority intends to slander this congressman. I find that everyone looked at me when they said it was a congresswoman, Mr. Chairman. I guess we’re few enough, so if you see one of us sitting up here, it must be her. She’s not. I know the congresswoman in question, and the majority have been cautious here, so I’m not making any charges. But I want to say for the record that there should be no implication that this congresswoman would try to protect a drug dealer if she knew he was a drug dealer, and that this congresswoman is now an outspoken opponent of the well – documented practice of racial profiling. It has also been my experience that it is very difficult to get the Justice Department or the DEA to drop an investigation that has started, so I would be quite amazed if it just took one call from a congressman and you could then drop the investigation. In that case, I think you could expect a lot more calls from MPs receiving complaints from their constituents. Mr. Wachsmann. Would the mistress give in to me? Mrs Norton. I give in to the Lord. Mr. Wachsmann. Thank you for giving in to me. Rep. Maxine Waters’ involvement in this matter appears to reflect her longstanding efforts to address racial profiling and other criminal justice issues affecting African Americans. In addition to serving as a member of the Judiciary Committee and its Constitutional Subcommittee, Representative Waters chaired the Congressional Black Caucus from 1997 to 1998 and formulated the agenda for Black America, which included a commitment to civil rights. In addition, she has been particularly active in raising public awareness of the practice of racial profiling by law enforcement agencies. I would like unanimous approval, Mr. Chairman, to file a transcript of an interview with her in August 1999 by the DEA office so that there may be no doubt as to Representative Waters and her involvement in this whole matter Professional responsibility and letter , which she had sent to the Federal Public Prosecutor in this regard. Mr Burton. No complaints, so ordered. [Note: Information mentioned is at the end of this hearing.] Mr. Waxman. Thank you for giving in to me. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr Burton. Any other comments? If not, I want witnesses sworn in. But because we have two undercover agents here that we don’t want on TV, we’re going to ask you to be seated, which is unusual. We want you all to raise your right hands. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Burton. Do any of you have an opening statement you’d like to make? If not, let’s start our first 30 minute segments and I’ll give in to Mr. Shays. Mr. Shays. Many Thanks. Before my 30 minutes begin, I would like to offer Mr. Waxman the opening 30 minutes, which I look forward to following. I know he has expressed concern about the ability to speak. Mr. Wachsmann. I thank you. But this is a hearing called by the majority, so the majority should go first. Mr. Shays. I do it with pleasure. I just wanted to make sure that’s acceptable. I want to put on record that before my 30 minutes, two of our four witnesses are African American. They happen to be behind the sign doing undercover work, but I’d like that recorded on the records. Mr. Wachsmann. I hope that having them identified in any way does not compromise their safety in any way. But thank you for your generous offer. Please allow the majority to continue with their 30 minutes. Then we’ll take ours. Mr. Shays. Many Thanks. Mr Schumacher, how long have you been a law enforcement officer? Mr Schumacher. About 27 years. Mr Burton. Mr. Schumacher, would you pull the microphone closer to you? Not really close. Just put it in that direction so we can record everything you say. Thank you my Lord. Mr. Shays. Approximately how many arrests did you make in those 27 years? More than you can count? Mr Schumacher. Somewhere over 1,000. Mr. Shays. How much experience do you have with narcotics investigations? Mr Schumacher. About 20 years. Mr. Shays. How many times have you testified in court? Mr Schumacher. Several hundred. Mr. Shays. Have you received awards or awards? Mr Schumacher. Yes indeed. Mr. Shays. Several or just a handful? Mr Schumacher. Five or six. Mr. Shays. What was your last award, recognition? Mr Schumacher. Performance price of the DEA. Mr. Shays. Have you been involved in a disciplinary proceeding? Mr Schumacher. Yes indeed. Mr. Shays. What were the results of this? Mr Schumacher. Unfounded. Mr. Shays. Are you a rogue DEA agent like one or two people have accused you of? In other words, operate outside of the rules and regulations? Mr Schumacher. Absolutely not. Mr. Shays. When you started work on the investigation I’m going to call Rap-A-Lot, when did you start? Mr Schumacher. August 1998. Mr. Shays. When were you assigned to the joint DEA/Houston Police Department Task Force? Mr Schumacher. In fact, shortly after I was assigned the case, I began recruiting HPD officers to participate in the investigation. Mr. Shays. I want you to bring the mic closer to you if you could. You have a rather soft voice. What were your results up to September 1999, what were the results of this investigation? Mr Schumacher. The investigation led to numerous arrests, grand jury indictments, crack and cocaine powder seizures. Mr. Shays. Do you remember how many arrests, how many charges, how many convictions? Mr Schumacher. At least 20. Mr. Shays. 20 arrests or 20 indictments or 20 convictions? Mr Schumacher. Well, some arrests resulted in more than one charge. But when I think about it, everyone we arrested has been convicted. Mr. Shays. Was information developed about illegal activities that you felt warranted further investigation when the task force’s work ceased? Mr Schumacher. Yes indeed. Mr. Shays. We’ll get into details later, but do you think enough work has been done to develop the leads you examined in 1999 and early 2000? Mr Schumacher. Excuse me, would you repeat that? Mr. Shays. We’ll go into more detail later, but do you think enough work has been done to develop leads you investigated in 1999 or early 2000, or do you think more work needs to be done? Mr Schumacher. More work had to be done. Mr. Shays. I want to ask Mr. Stephens — Mr. Chaison, is that how you say your name? Mr. Chaison. That’s right. Mr. Shays. You both have to switch the microphone back and forth. Mr Burton. You need to point the microphone directly at your mouth and have it relatively close. Mr. Shays. Mr. Stephens, could each of you please provide a brief summary of your background and law enforcement experience? Mr. Stephens. I’ve been a cop with the Houston Police Department for 20 years and 6 months. I was on patrol for a short time, became a sergeant and went to homicide for 10 years. I’ve been in the drug business for 6 years. Mr. Shays. Mr. Chaison. Mr. Chaison. Yes. I’ve been a police officer for 21 years. Ich habe in der Special Operations Division gearbeitet, wo wir für die Sicherheit des Präsidenten, des Vizepräsidenten und aller Würdenträger gesorgt haben, die in die Stadt Houston kamen. 1993 wurde ich der Betäubungsmittelabteilung zugeteilt, wo ich seitdem arbeite. Herr Shays. Und Sie sind manchmal ein Undercover-Offizier. Herr Chaison. Das ist richtig. Herr Shays. Herr Allen. Herr Allen. Ja, ich bin seit 17 Jahren Polizist. Ich habe 9 Jahre in der Betäubungsmittelbranche gearbeitet. Ich habe 4 Jahre als Lügendetektor gearbeitet. Herr Shays. Soweit ich weiß, waren Sie alle drei an der gemeinsamen Task Force mit der DEA beteiligt, um die Rap-A-Lot-Organisation zu untersuchen, stimmt das, Mr. Stephens? Herr Stephens. Ja, mein Herr, das ist es. Herr Shays. Herr Chaison. Herr Chaison. Das ist richtig. Herr Shays. Herr Allen. Herr Allen. Das ist richtig. Herr Shays. Wann waren Sie in der Task Force und was waren Ihre Aufgaben, so gut Sie uns das sagen können? Wieder werden wir absteigen. Herr Stephens. Herr Stephens. Im Oktober oder November 1998 kam Jack Schumacher zum Houston Police Department, zur Narcotics Division, und bat eine Einheit um Unterstützung bei einer Untersuchung, bei der es sich um den Rap-A-Lot-Fall handelte. Mein damaliger Captain wies dann meine Gruppe und mich an, mit Agent Schumacher an diesem Fall zu arbeiten, und wir blieben an dem Fall, bis er abgeschlossen war. Herr Shays. Mr. Chaison – wenn Sie sagen, bis es geschlossen war, nicht, dass Sie Ihre Arbeit beendet hätten, Mr. Stephens, ist das richtig? Herr Stephens. Das ist richtig. Herr Shays. Die Arbeit muss noch weitergehen, ist das richtig? Herr Stephens. Yes indeed. Herr Shays. Many Thanks. Herr Chaison. Herr Chaison. Ja, nachdem unsere Gruppe beauftragt wurde, die DEA zu unterstützen, war meine Hauptfunktion Fallagent und UC – UC war Undercover-Offizier. Herr Shays. Wann wurden Sie eingesetzt? Herr Chaison. Im September 1998. Herr Shays. Herr Allen. Herr Allen. Meine Rolle begann ebenfalls im September 1998. Meine Hauptaufgabe war Fallagent und verdeckter Ermittler. Herr Shays. Ich möchte, dass jeder von Ihnen mir das Datum nennt, an dem Ihre Arbeit ausgesetzt wurde. Herr Stephens. Herr Stephens. Ich weiß das genaue Datum nicht, aber es war in der Zeit zwischen dem 20. und 25. September, glaube ich, 1999. Mr. Shays. Herr Chaison. Herr Chaison. September 1999. Herr Allen. September 1999. Herr Shays. In allen drei Fällen, meine Herren, waren Sie an Ermittlungen gegen die Organisation Rap-A-Lot beteiligt, stimmt das? Herr Stephens. Herr Stephens. Das ist richtig. Herr Chaison. Das ist richtig. Herr Allen. Das ist richtig. Herr Shays. Hat Special Agent Ernie Howard beim ersten Treffen der gemeinsamen Task Force Kommentare dazu abgegeben, dass die Task Force nicht wie andere von politischem Einfluss betroffen sein würde? Und ich würde gerne wissen, was hat er gesagt? Herr Stephens. Herr Stephens. Soweit ich mich erinnere, hat er uns seine volle Unterstützung gegeben. Er wollte, dass der Fall so untersucht wurde, dass man es tat, wenn es etwas zu tun gab; wenn nicht, ihm Bescheid sagen. Er war unsere größte Unterstützung während der Untersuchung des Falls. Herr Shays. Herr Chaison. Herr Chaison. Ja, nach meinem Verständnis von Mr. Howard würde er uns bei allem helfen, was wir brauchten. Er stand zu 100 Prozent hinter uns und wollte, dass wenn irgendetwas da war, es aufgedeckt werden sollte; wenn nicht, akzeptiere das. Herr Allen. Meines Wissens war es dasselbe, was Mr. Chaison gesagt hat. Es begann dort, wo wir alle Ressourcen hatten, die wir brauchten, bis es gestoppt wurde. Herr Shays. Mr. Stephens, Sie haben im Oktober 1998 im Houstoner DEA-Büro gearbeitet. Mr. Stephens. We actually moved over there I believe in December 1998. My squad relocated to the DEA office, yes, sir. Mr. Shays. I would like to ask each of you, was this the only time that you worked on a joint task force for the DEA in Houston? Mr. Stephens. No, sir. Mr. Chaison. No. Mr. Allen. No. Mr. Shays. Did all of you work under the DEA Special Agent in Charge Earnest Howard? Mr. Stephens. Mr. Stephens. We are assigned to the Houston Police Department, sir. The ultimate person we worked for would be our chief. But, yes, during that task force, he was our supervisor. Mr. Shays. And for all three. Mr. Chaison. That’s correct. Mr. Allen. That’s correct. Mr. Shays. In January 1999 the task force made a significant arrest in the case. Could you please explain what happened at that time? And I would open it to up to Mr. Stephens. And if any of you, Mr. Chaison or Mr. Allen, want to add to it you can join in afterwards. Mr. Stephens. Mr. Stephens. It was January 7, 1999. It was a reversal operation—- Mr. Burton. May I interrupt real quickly here? Just to clarify this was the arrest of McCarter, Ballard, Russell, et al, and McCarter was the No. 3 in the Rap-A-Lot organization and the arrest involved 6 kilos of cocaine, correct? Mr. Stephens. Yes, sir. Mr. Burton. Many Thanks. Mr. Shays. Can you add to that? Mr. Stephens. It was actually Steven McCarter, Edward Russell, William Ballard and Eric Bradley, in a reversal operation that took place on January 7 where Mr. McCarter and Mr. Russell, Mr. Bradley and Mr. Ballard came to a hotel in Houston, TX, and took 6 kilos of cocaine and the $90,000. Mr. Shays. Anything that you gentlemen would add? OK. Note that for the record. Mr. Schumacher, in August 1999 our colleague, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, wrote a letter to Attorney General Janet Reno concerning the Prince investigation or what I call the Rap-A- Lot investigation by the DEA. The letter alleged that Prince was the subject of racial harassment by the DEA. The DEA’s Office of Professional Responsibility launched an investigation into the actions of its agent. Did you all know about this letter, Mr. Schumacher? Mr. Schumacher. Yes, sir. Mr. Shays. Mr. Stephens. Mr. Stephens. Yes. Mr. Shays. First off, I would like to know when you knew, Mr. Schumacher. This was August 1999, that the letter was written. Mr. Schumacher. The latter part of August. Mr. Stephens. The same. Mr. Shays. Mr. Chaison, did you know of the letter? Mr. Chaison. Yes, the same. Mr. Allen. The same. Mr. Shays. Now I would like to know–first off, no one is questioning the integrity of our colleague. We might question the judgment, but that’s another issue. But I would like to know how did the letter affect your work, Mr. Schumacher? Mr. Schumacher. Well, it was a multi-step process. Mr. Shays. Are you referring to a multi-step because of the Office of Professional Responsibility? Mr. Schumacher. Well, it was a series of events, sir. Mr. Shays. OK, let’s run down them as quick as you can. Mr. Schumacher. The letter came in. We were told about it. We were told subsequently that a DEA internal OPR investigation was launched and that Ms. Waters was actively pursuing– advocating these allegations. Mr. Shays. We’re kind of running out of time here, but the bottom line is you were then investigated, is that correct? Mr. Schumacher. Yes, sir, we were. Mr. Shays. And what was the result of the investigation? Mr. Schumacher. Of the OPR investigation? Mr. Shays. Yes, sir. Mr. Schumacher. In October 2000, myself and Agent Scott received clearance letters from OPR. Mr. Shays. Mr. Chaison and Mr. Allen and Mr. Stephens, do you want to add anything? Mr. Stephens. As far as morale for the letter, what I think hurt us as much as anything was the fact that it alleged racial profiling of Mr. Smith. And myself, my team members, Agent Schumacher and the ones on the task force at that time had never been around Mr. Smith except for in the courtroom where he was there to see Mr. McCarter and Mr. Russell during the trial. Mr. Shays. So just for the record, all four of you, do you believe this investigation was motivated by race in any way? Mr. Schumacher. Mr. Schumacher. Absolutely not. Mr. Shays. Mr. Stephens. Mr. Stephens. No. Mr. Shays. Mr. Chaison and Mr. Allen. Mr. Chaison. No. Mr. Allen. No. Mr. Shays. Just note for the record that, Mr. Chaison and Mr. Allen, you both are African Americans, is that correct? Mr. Chaison. That’s correct. Mr. Allen. That is correct. Mr. Shays. It is our understanding that in September or October 1999 Special Agent in Charge of the DEA office in Houston, Mr. Howard, called a meeting of the task force investigating the Rap-A-Lot matter. Were you called to a meeting of the whole task force by Agent Howard in September/ October 1999, and what happened at that meeting, Mr. Stephens? Mr. Stephens. Yes, I was called to a meeting; and Mr. Howard said that we were shutting down the investigation or that he was shutting down the investigation. Mr. Shays. Was it your understanding that as to the exact date and time of this meeting–when was it, do you remember? Mr. Stephens. I don’t recall the exact date. I think it was in the range of September 20 through the 25th. Mr. Shays. Mr. Chaison or Mr. Allen, were you at this meeting? Mr. Chaison. Yes. Mr. Allen. Yes. Mr. Shays. And you verify that basically you were told it was being shut down? Mr. Chaison. Yes. Mr. Allen. That’s correct. Mr. Shays. What was the reason, what was the explanation, Mr. Stephens? Mr. Stephens. Political reasons. Mr. Shays. That’s your interpretation. Mr. Stephens. Those were his words, political reasons. Mr. Shays. Would you add to that, Mr. Chaison, Mr. Allen? Mr. Chaison. We were told the investigation was being stopped because of political pressure. Mr. Shays. Mr. Allen. Mr. Allen. Same response. Because of political pressure. Mr. Shays. Mr. Schumacher, were you at that meeting? Mr. Schumacher. Yes, sir, I was. Mr. Shays. Does your recollection coincide with Mr. Stephens, Mr. Chaison and Mr. Allen? Mr. Schumacher. Yes, it does. Mr. Shays. In your own words, what was the reason? Mr. Schumacher. Mr. Howard said it was headquarters, politics–or politics and headquarters and that as of 10:21 this morning we’re shutting it down. Mr. Shays. Now it’s our understanding that a total of seven Houston policemen were taken off the case. What was done to replace them, Mr. Stephens? Mr. Stephens. There was nothing done to replace them. Mr. Shays. They were taken off the case? Mr. Stephens. Yes, sir. We did continue with the judicial process. Anyone going to court we did follow through with that. But as far as any proactive investigation they were not replaced. Mr. Shays. So those who were indicted, the indictments were pursued, but there was no further investigation, to the best of your knowledge. Mr. Stephens. There was no proactive investigation, no, sir. Mr. Shays. Given that all of you had important work to do, what did Mr. Howard do to ensure that the level of effort did not drop off? Mr. Stephens. Mr. Stephens. Nothing that I know of, sir. Mr. Shays. Mr. Chaison, Mr. Allen. Mr. Chaison. I am not understanding your question. Mr. Shays. Mr. Schumacher, let me just ask you that question. Mr. Schumacher. I’m sorry, would you repeat that? Mr. Shays. Given that–all the important work to do, what did Mr. Howard do to ensure that the level of effort did not drop off? Mr. Schumacher. What efforts were made by–in September? none. Mr. Shays. Seven policemen are taken off the case. Mr. Schumacher. Right. Mr. Shays. So what effort was made by Mr. Howard to make sure that the effort of investigation did not drop off? Seven officers were removed. Who took their place? Mr. Schumacher. None, no one. Mr. Shays. So it’s your testimony that, to the best of your knowledge, Mr. Howard did nothing to make sure that this investigation continued. Mr. Schumacher. Yes, sir. Mr. Burton. If the gentleman would yield. The investigation stopped at that point. Mr. Howard put nobody else on the firing line to go out and continue the investigation, correct? Mr. Schumacher. That is correct sir. Mr. Burton. Many Thanks. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Shays. You told the committee staff, Mr. Stephens, that Mr. Howard had been one of your biggest supporters and he put a No. 1 priority on the investigation. Do you believe–first off, what was his demeanor? Can you gentlemen tell me? Was he happy about ending this case or unhappy or what? Mr. Stephens. On which part? At the beginning or at the end? Mr. Shay. At the end. Mr. Stephens. At the end it was my opinion he was uncomfortable when he told us to shut it down. When the group started asking questions about it, that’s when he time stamped it and gave a date and time. The date I don’t remember. The time I don’t. But I know that he did say, it’s so and so, it’s this time, this date, I’m telling you it’s shut down. Mr. Shays. Mr. Chaison, Mr. Allen, you want to add to that? Mr. Chaison. Yes. I think as far as how it affected my morale it was–being in police work so long and doing many, many, many investigations and to be assured in this investigation that we had 100 percent support and then have the rug snatched from under us, it was like it wasn’t worth it all. What are we out here doing? Are we on the same page as everybody here, concerned about the war on drugs or just what is it? Sag mir. Mr. Shays. Mr. Chaison, Mr. Allen, both of you do undercover work. When you do this kind of work do you fear that your life is in danger? Mr. Allen. Yes, I do, especially after the meeting we had with Mr. Howard. It took a lot out of me because I couldn’t understand, I couldn’t get an answer why. We were doing well, and all of sudden it was stopped. But there was no answer why, and that bothers me till this day. Mr. Shays. Let me ask each of you, Mr. Stephens, Mr. Chaison, Mr. Allen, you are in the process of investigating this work. It was shut down. Was it shut down because you basically had run out of leads and it wasn’t going anywhere or were you fairly certain that you were making progress in this investigation? Mr. Allen, let’s start with you. Mr. Allen. Based on all the information we had, we were still continuing with the investigation. There were more leads that we can follow. There was more undercover work we could have done, but due to the fact it was shut down we couldn’t do any more because we still had informants out there working the streets for us. Mr. Shays. So when it was shut down this was kind of out of the blue. This wasn’t something that you were expecting. Mr. Allen. That’s correct. Mr. Shays. Mr. Chaison. Mr. Chaison. That’s correct. We had informants that were still in the picture, and all of a sudden we had to go to them and explain to them that–don’t do anything else. Again, it was–when you see officers hurt in the line of duty and especially in narcotics investigations and then you have this happen to you it’s very depressing. Mr. Shays. Do you feel you have the support of your fellow officers coming up here or do you they kind of think that you are making a mistake coming up here? Are they happy to see you up here do you think or are they disappointed that you’re here? Mr. Chaison. No, I think–when we left, the officers that know us well, we have 100 percent support of our department and our co-workers. It’s almost like a rooting section we may receive when we return. Again, we make many arrests, small people and people with notoriety; and the Federal Government and the States have invested a lot of time and money into our investigations. And then we get someone to come along with money and can halt an investigation and then can have music done behind it, bragging about what they have done, it’s a slap in the face. Mr. Shays. You’re making reference to the fact that Mr. Prince, basically, his legitimate business is hard-core gang rap music. And maybe you could make reference a little more clearly here. Are you saying that one of rapsters was mentioning this case or mentioning any of the officers? Mr. Chaison. That’s correct. One of his artists on his label made a song, composed a song about our investigation and bragging how he’s had DEA agents replaced and jobs terminated, confidential informants would be killed or killed. Mr. Shays. Did he mention any law enforcement’s names in this rap music? Mr. Chaison. Yes, he did he mentioned Jack Schumacher and Chad Scott. He mentioned the local police which he called–the local police executing warrants at his house. Mr. Shays. Now we’re going to have Agent Howard testify in the next panel, but the bottom line of your testimony–how much time do I have left? I would like each of you to describe to me whether you felt this investigation should have continued. I want you to tell me why you think it ended and tell me what you think if we continued this investigation what we would have achieved. And I’ll start with you, Mr. Schumacher. Mr. Schumacher. Yes, sir. I think that the–based on the results that the investigative team had accomplished I think it should have continued, it being the investigation. We had three informants still plugged in to the Rap-A-Lot gang, if you will; and we were just getting, really, getting to the second phase. And it started out as a drug investigation. It spread out to police corruption, murder. We were in the second phase, and I think it should have continued. We had the investigative leads; and had the investigative resources continued to go forward, I believe we would have met with some success. Mr. Shays. Many Thanks. I’m going to come back to you, and I will have about 10 questions. I want to go fairly quickly. Mr. Stephens. Mr. Stephens. OK. I think we definitely had things to do. We had people in jail that, in my opinion and without going into too much detail about the case, hold the key to us being successful. We started to break a stranglehold that Rap-A-Lot had on the 5th ward in Houston where everyone was afraid to talk to us, and we were taking small steps to get big steps, sometimes bigger than others, but there was much more left to be done. Mr. Shays. So Mr. Prince succeeded in stopping the investigation it appears, and the end result is you even have a song celebrating the fact that he was able to stop the police work. Mr. Chaison. Mr. Chaison. That’s correct. I definitely feel that–let me relate a hot kitchen to you. When it’s hot in the kitchen, when the heat is turned up and you want to alleviate that heat, you get out of the kitchen or you turn your heating system off. The heat was definitely on him and his organization. It was there. The pressure was on, which started to infiltrate his organization, and he knew this. And the best way to–I would assume the best way to stop this investigation was to do it like he had done it before, which I wasn’t privileged to that investigation but I understand it was stopped due to political pressure. And if political pressure worked before then it will work again. And this has happened. This is my opinion. Mr. Shays. Is your opinion basically that you–sometimes there’s no one to kind of protect the small guy but the big guy has people to find ways to protect him? Is that kind of what you’re saying to us? Mr. Chaison. Yes, we have small people, small fish ask us all the time, why don’t you get the big guy? And we had a big guy and it was evident—- Mr. Shays. And yet he may have been found innocent. Your investigation may not have led to something, but it’s your testimony that your investigation was stopped in the middle. Mr. Chaison. That’s correct. Mr. Shays. Mr. Allen. Mr. Allen. Yes, our goal was to target a person. We targeted that person, we started making arrests, we got into the 5th ward, and all of a sudden it was stopped. I feel real bad about it because we were making headway, we were continuing to make headway, and then all of a sudden it stopped. Mr. Shays. I yield back my time. Mr. Burton. I would like to ask a couple questions if I might, if the gentleman would yield to me. How many of the 20 people that were convicted of narcotics trafficking or murder were associated with Mr. Prince and Rap- A-Lot? Were there a lot of them? Mr. Schumacher. I can think of about 10. Mr. Shays. Were any of them in an executive capacity or in what capacity in which did they serve? Mr. Schumacher. Two of them, McCarter and Russell, whom we arrested on January 7, 1999, occupied what I would characterize as management-style positions with Prince’s Rap-A-Lot company. They had an office on the same floor as Mr. Prince. And during our investigation in January we had numerous calls between an informant and Russell while Russell was at the compound, Rap-A- Lot compound. He would answer the phone Rap-A-Lot. And then we had the informant on two different occasions meet with Russell in his office at the Rap-A-Lot compound. Mr. Burton. There was one murder conviction. Was there any association between the person that was convicted of murder and anybody at Rap-A-Lot? Mr. Schumacher. Yes, sir. Mr. Burton. Can you give us that connection? Mr. Schumacher. Lamar Burkes was recently convicted of murder. And we had been told on several occasions by another informant that it was the informant’s understanding that Prince had solicited Burkes to murder selected key witnesses in this case. Mr. Burton. That Prince had himself, according to your informant–this was secondhand information–had been involved. Mr. Schumacher. Yes. Mr. Burton. This is speculative, but you do believe that there would have been more convictions had you been able to continue the investigation and you might have been able to go right up the food chain and nail the kingpin, is that correct? Mr. Schumacher. I think there would have been more convictions, and we would have tried very, very hard to reach our objective. Mr. Burton. Mr. Stephens. Mr. Stephens. Absolutely. Mr. Chaison. That’s correct. Mr. Allen. That is correct. Mr. Burton. So all four of you believe that this case was cutoff in the middle of the stream and that the people who were the big Kahuna or kingpins were saved by the stopping of the investigation, correct? Mr. Schumacher. They received a reprieve, yes, sir. Mr. Stephens. Yes, sir. Mr. Chaison. That’s correct, sir. Mr. Allen. Yes. Mr. Burton. Any more questions from anybody? Mr. LaTourette. While the yellow light is still on. Mr. Shays. I want to ask one last thing to Mr. Schumacher. Were you transferred to a desk job on March 15, 2000? Mr. Schumacher. Yes, sir. Mr. Shays. What do you believe was the reason for this transfer? Mr. Schumacher. I was told that headquarters told our front office to take me out of–off the Rap-A-Lot case, out of the group that has the case and preferably out of the Houston office. Mr. Shays. Who told you that? Mr. Schumacher. I was told by–under confidential circumstances. Mr. Shays. OK. Many Thanks. Mr. Burton. Mr. Waxman, 30 minutes. Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I want to yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cummings. Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Waxman. First, I want to say to all our officers, we applaud what you do every day. As one who has addressed the drug issue head on and lives in a community that’s been taken over by drugs to a large degree, I understand what you do, and we want to thank you for doing what you do. But I want to clear up something very quickly. Mr. Shays said something that tremendously concerns me as a Member of the U.S. Congress when he spoke of Maxine Waters; and he said, I don’t question her integrity, but I do question her judgment. And certainly he has that right. But I want to put it on the record that I could think of no Member of Congress who has fought this drug war and put her life on the line on many, many occasions–and I am talking about even from an international level–than Maxine Waters. And I just want to make sure that that’s very clear because I would not want this moment in history to pass without that being abundantly clear. Let me just ask you, Mr. Schumacher, I want to go for a moment–I am sure Mr. Waxman will go into other issues, but I want to just go to this discussion that was had with Mr. Howard with regard to the investigation being stopped. One of my concerns in sitting on this committee has consistently been is a lot of times people are brought before this committee, accusations are made, and these people have to go back to their communities and live. I want to make sure, just as we would not accuse you of something that you did not do, because you do have to go back to Texas, we wouldn’t want that to happen to anyone. I know I wouldn’t. Let me ask you this in that regard in this conversation that you had with Mr. Howard: did he tell you about–did he give up any names of people when he talked about being stopped for–the investigation being halted for political reasons? Mr. Schumacher. It seems that he mentioned the name Maxine or Waters. Es tut mir Leid. Can you hear me? Mr. Cummings. Yeah, I can hear you. Can you tell us what he said? Mr. Schumacher. The best I recall, sir, is he walked into the group, we gathered up–it was not unusual for Mr. Howard to come over and speak to me directly about the case because he had demonstrated an intense interest in it. He was our biggest supporter, our biggest fan; and we cannot have made the progress we had made without him providing the resources for us. But on that particular day he came in, said numerous phrases, etc. What I recall was the words, DEA headquarters or headquarters, politics, Maxine or Maxine’s letter, and I am shutting it down. I don’t want anybody to get hurt here. Mr. Cummings. Now, this was–you were–I think you said a little bit earlier that there had been a complaint against you, is that right, with regard to–you had been investigated with regard to what kind of charges, can you tell us, with regard to this case that is? Mr. Schumacher. Allegations not charges. Mr. Cummings. Allegations. Were you being investigated? Mr. Schumacher. Yes, sir. Mr. Cummings. What were those investigations? What was that in regard to? Mr. Schumacher. Well, I later found out when I was requested to come and interview up here in Washington, DEA headquarters, OPR, in February 2000. That was the first time I saw what the allegations were. Mr. Cummings. And what were the allegations? Mr. Schumacher. Racial profiling, civil rights violation, discrimination, conduct unbecoming of an agent. Mr. Cummings. During the course of the–I think you mentioned another person who was also investigated, do you recall? Mr. Schumacher. Agent Chad Scott. Mr. Cummings. Agent Scott. Good. Now when this discussion was had with Mr. Howard, did he mention at all the investigation and was the investigation still ongoing at the time that this conversation took place? Mr. Schumacher. I am not sure which investigation you’re referring to. Mr. Cummings. Good. Mr. Schumacher. There is the criminal investigation involving Rap-A-Lot, then there’s the internal investigation by DEA. Mr. Cummings. I’ll clear that up for you. Let me clear that up, and thank you for bringing that to my attention. What I am asking you is when you had the discussion with Mr. Howard about the ending of this criminal investigation of Rap-A-Lot, was the investigation of you, the internal investigation, still going on? Mr. Schumacher. I was not aware that it was active or initiated. I want to say at that time my understanding was that Ms. Waters–subsequent to a visit by Mr. Prince to her office, Ms. Waters had sent a letter and followed it up with a phone call to Attorney General Reno, who in turn forwarded that letter over to DEA headquarters. And that was my understanding of where it was at that point. Now when officially DEA headquarters, OPR initiated that investigation I don’t know to this day. I don’t know the date. Mr. Cummings. Let me ask you this: Your visit to Washington, did it come subsequent to your meeting with Mr. Howard about the ending of the criminal investigation? Did it come after that? Mr. Schumacher. Yes, sir, it did. Mr. Cummings. Good. Now, when the discussion was–are you clear? Mr. Schumacher. Yes. Mr. Cummings. When the discussion was had with the–let me go to this last discussion you said you had with the confidential–this confidential discussion that you had. Was that with a member of the DEA or–can you tell us that–or a member of the Houston Police Department? Can you tell us that? Mr. Schumacher. It’s a confidential matter. Mr. Cummings. Good. So you can’t tell us. When Mr. Shays asked you whether you were now–or someone over here asked you whether you now had a desk job, you have a desk job now, is that right? Mr. Schumacher. I did at that time, yes, sir. Mr. Cummings. Now I think you said something that–I just want you to clear this up for us. You said that it had gotten into the second phase, that you were about to go into the second phase–what does that mean–of the criminal investigation. Mr. Schumacher. Well, that’s my characterization of the situation. As Sergeant Stephens had referred to, we anticipated either McCarter or Russell cooperating and/or some of the other folks we had arrested that they would become defendant/ witnesses, if you will. And the second phase would be launched subsequent to that, along with some other information that informants we had working—- Mr. Cummings. And are these cases–let’s assume the investigation was started up again, are the cases still viable, you think? While you’re thinking, let me ask Mr. Stephens, do you think the cases are still viable? Mr. Stephens. I think it would take a lot more work now than it would then, but I’m not going to give up on it. I think probably we could do something, yes. Mr. Cummings. What about you, Mr. Allen? Mr. Allen. I think it would be a hard task to get back to right where we were before it ended. It would be real hard. Mr. Cummings. Mr. Schumacher. Mr. Schumacher. The hardest part would be—- Mr. Burton. Excuse me, I believe the other officer would like to comment. Mr. Cummings. I will get back to him. I thought Mr. Schumacher was ready to respond. Mr. Schumacher. The hardest part would probably be to reestablish the motivation of our initial informants, because when we backed off they were just left out there in the cold, so to speak. Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chaison. Mr. Chaison. Yes, I concur. I think we could probably do something, but it would be difficult to get back to where we were. Because not only do we have politics playing a part, but we have the judicial system we have to look at also as, to me, causing interference. Mr. Cummings. Last but not least, Mr. Chaison, you in your testimony–I listened to you very carefully when you were talking about the rap songs, and I must admit I think there is a generation gap with regard to me and the rappers, but I do listen to what they write about and sing about or speak about. And I take it that you, when you listened to these, this rap is–this by this particular fella, Prince, the songs that you talked about, the one that you talked about where they gave the lyrics that referred to Schumacher and you all—- Mr. Chaison. I am referring to an artist on the Rap-A-Lot label, Brad “Scarface” Jordan. I don’t know if anyone, any Congressman, Congressladies, have listened to the CD. I would encourage you to listen. It’s very clear. It’s not a rap song that’s difficult to understand. But when you advocate the hostility and the violence that this individual is talking about, that’s a problem. Again, I say that not only do we have problems politically, when we take cases to court and they go through the system and the judge comes–after the jury finds a defendant guilty and then a judge comes back and reverses the jury’s decision, I’m still trying to understand that. I don’t know how that type of thing happens, and I have been in court, going to court on court cases for 21 years or better, and you know, there’s just something very blatant. It’s difficult for me to understand. Mr. Cummings. As a lawyer, I just have to ask you this, you’re not trying to–you’re not accusing a judge of misconduct, are you? I’m just curious. Is that what you’re saying? Mr. Chaison. No. I’m just trying to understand what happened, and then you as an attorney may be able to help me shed some light on to me what happened in Federal cases like that. I don’t know. Mr. Cummings. OK. Mr. Chaison. I would definitely not accuse a Federal judge, a State judge, a municipal court judge of any wrongdoing. I’m not an attorney, so I don’t understand the process. I understand what I’m supposed to do as an employee of the police department, and I do that and I do it well, and we’re similar to the judicial system, and I try and understand what the court is about. Mr. Cummings. I understand. Let me just ask this one last thing. When the–when you all were taken off the case–Mr. Stephens, when you all were taken off the case, how many officers were left in the task force, do you know? Mr. Stephens. Well, the joint task force dissolved when we left. Mr. Cummings. OK. Mr. Stephens. We were part of that joint task force, DEA group four remained, but that was it. Mr. Cummings. So it was over? Mr. Stephens. Yes. Mr. Cummings. How many cases were still pending to go to court? Mr. Stephens. I’d be guessing, but I’d say three, four, five, around in there. Mr. Cummings. So you all testified–did you testify in those cases? Mr. Stephens. Yes. Mr. Cummings. And were you successful? Mr. Stephens. Yes. Mr. Cummings. Now, DEA, did DEA force remain, is that what you said? Mr. Stephens. They continued being DEA. The task force dissolved. They remained in their offices which is where we had been—- Mr. Cummings. Do you know whether they continued to do any investigations with regard to any of the things that you all were looking at? Mr. Stephens. I don’t know of them doing anything. I never saw anything, never heard anything, and saw no sixes. Mr. Cummings. Would you have knowledge of that? Would that knowledge normally come to you? Mr. Stephens. Yes. Mr. Cummings. What about you–I’m sorry, Mr. Chaison. Mr. Chaison. No, I have no knowledge of any continuing investigations after it was shut down. Mr. Cummings. Mr. Allen. Mr. Allen. No knowledge of any investigation. Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much. Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Cummings. Let me pursue some questions, a few questions of the Houston police officers here today, to make sure I understand the facts and can separate them from speculation. All three of you were assigned to an organized crime drug enforcement task force in the summer and fall of 1999. Sergeant Stephens, isn’t that correct? Mr. Stephens. 1998 is when we were assigned. Mr. Waxman. And Officer Allen? Mr. Allen. 1999, yes, sir. Mr. Waxman. And Officer Chaison? Mr. Chaison. That’s correct, 1998. Mr. Waxman. Let’s talk about what that means. My understanding is that this kind of assignment allows different law enforcement organizations, Federal, State and local, to cooperate in major drug investigations and to draw on Federal resources; isn’t that correct? Mr. Stephens. Yes, sir. Mr. Waxman. So the task force was not a permanent assignment, was it? Mr. Stephens. Not for us, it was not, no, sir. Mr. Waxman. If you disagree, let me know, but otherwise, whichever one of you answers. Mr. Waxman. You knew that the assignment would end and you would eventually return to your duties with the Houston Police Department; is that correct? Mr. Stephens. Yes. Mr. Waxman. I think you have all testified that in September 1999, you and others working on the task force had a meeting with Special Agent-in-Charge Ernest Howard? Mr. Stephens. That’s correct. Mr. Waxman. And he indicated to you at that time that he was pulling you off the investigation; is that right? Mr. Stephens. Yes. Mr. Waxman. My understanding is that you don’t recall exactly what he said, but you recall that he seemed frustrated and that he made some reference to political pressure. Is that a correct statement? Mr. Stephens. That’s correct. Mr. Waxman. Do any of you have a more detailed recollection of what Mr. Howard said? Mr. Stephens. Just again, about the time stamping, when there were questions as to why it was being shut down, because Agent Schumacher asked him in front of the group and started to get a little more in depth as to what was going on, that’s when he looked at his watch and gave the date and time and said it’s stopping, and didn’t really go into any more detail at all. Mr. Waxman. Sergeant Stephens, you were the senior Houston police officer on the task force. Are you aware of any discussions between Mr. Howard and any of your superiors prior about pulling you and other Houston police officers back to the department? Mr. Stephens. No, sir. Mr. Waxman. Is it possible that Mr. Howard had discussions about task force staffing with senior Houston police officials without your knowledge? Mr. Stephens. Secure. Mr. Waxman. You’ve testified that in August 1999, Mr. Howard told you that he was, “shutting down the investigation and was doing so for political reasons.” September–but there are some documents that I want to bring to your attention. There’s a September 27 memo from Special Agent James Nims, notes that he was instructed not to pursue a new lead until the Office of Professional Responsibility investigation had cleared, and there are e-mails were written by Mr. Howard in March 2000 suggesting that the investigation was ongoing as of that date. These documents appear to be inconsistent with any statement by Mr. Howard that he was shutting down the investigation, doesn’t it? And you just know that you were removed from the investigation. Is that correct or do you have any other—- Mr. Stephens. No. In September, if you look at the case file, there was no more dope that was purchased, there were no more surveillance sixes. There was nothing proactive done on that investigation following that meeting with Mr. Howard, and you’re not going to find anything because it just wasn’t done. How there’s a contradiction there between March and September, I don’t know. I just know what he told us. Mr. Waxman. Mr. Schumacher, I understand you and others in your enforcement group were investigated and cleared of wrongdoing by DEA’s Office of Professional Responsibility; is that correct? Mr. Schumacher. Yes, sir. Mr. Waxman. You’re probably aware that your former supervisor, James Nims, wrote a memo on September 27, 1999, I just mentioned it, that made its way into the Dallas Morning News. The memo reportedly said that Mr. Howard had instructed Mr. Nims not to pursue any new leads on the investigation until the Office of Professional Responsibility investigation cleared. Were you taken off the investigation at that time? Mr. Schumacher. September 27th? Mr. Waxman. Uh-huh. Mr. Schumacher. The investigation was shut down. There was no need to take me off. Mr. Waxman. Was it your understanding, you and others under Mr. Nims’ supervision were taken off the investigation because of the Office of Professional Responsibility investigation? Mr. Schumacher. That wasn’t my understanding. Mr. Waxman. Set aside the question as to whether the Office of Professional Responsibility investigation was warranted or not warranted. Do you think it’s unusual for a DEA manager to temporarily reassign an agent a case when that agent’s conduct on the case comes under investigation? Mr. Schumacher. I’m not qualified to answer that, sir. I think and work like a street agent, not like a manager. Mr. Waxman. Would it surprise you to hear from the DEA that its managers often reassign agents under similar circumstances? Mr. Schumacher. I personally hadn’t seen that happen before. Mr. Waxman. On March 15, you were temporarily reassigned from a position as acting supervisor of an enforcement group to a position as the acting supervisor of a support group; is that correct? Mr. Schumacher. That is correct. Mr. Waxman. There have been reports in the press suggesting that there is some connection between this transfer and a visit by Vice President Gore to Brook Hollow Baptist Church on March 12. Aside from the fact that Vice President Gore visited the church 3 days before the date of your transfer, are you aware of any evidence that Vice President Gore discussed the narcotics investigation during his visit? Mr. Schumacher. Absolutely not. Mr. Waxman. Do you have any information that Vice President Gore discussed campaign contributions with the pastor of this church or any one of the subjects of the investigation? Mr. Schumacher. No, I don’t. Mr. Waxman. And do you have any information that the pastor of this church or one of the subjects of the investigation made campaign contributions to Vice President Gore or the Democratic National Committee? Mr. Schumacher. I have some confidential informant information relative to that. Mr. Waxman. And that is information aside from any filing or disclosure by the campaigns? Mr. Schumacher. I don’t know about that. Mr. Waxman. You don’t know about that. Do you have any information at all that shows that the Vice President Gore directly or indirectly interfered with this investigation? Mr. Schumacher. No, sir. Mr. Waxman. So what you have is some confidential information that there might have been contributions to either Vice President Gore or the Democratic Party from whom? Mr. Schumacher. Prince. Mr. Waxman. Aha. And you don’t know that there’s any connection between that and the events that we’re discussing that related to this investigation? Mr. Schumacher. No, sir. Mr. Waxman. Just for the record, there’s no record of any contributions from James Prince or Rap-A-Lot to Vice President Gore or the Democratic National Committee. I just state that for the record. Do any of you have any additional information apart from speculation and rumor showing that politics played a role in your transfer or management decisions in this investigation? And I address that to anybody, all of you on the panel. Mr. Allen. Mr. Allen. No, I do not. Mr. Chaison. No, sir, I do not. Mr. Waxman. Mr. Stephens, sir. Mr. Schumacher. Other than what I was told in September by Mr. Howard. Mr. Waxman. Mr. Schumacher, let me go back to you about this contribution that you heard about from a confidential source. You are testifying under oath. If what you say is true and there’s no filing, it may involve a criminal violation for not having disclosed this contribution. Would you share this information with the committee, your confidential information? Mr. Schumacher. No, sir. Mr. Waxman. If not the name of the source, the details that were related to you. Mr. Schumacher. It’s a confidential matter, sir. Mr. Waxman. You’re testifying before Congress. We’re asking you about some matter that might involve a violation of criminal law, and it would be, I think, incumbent upon you to tell us the substance of what report you heard, if not the source. What did you hear? Mr. Schumacher. Excuse me for a moment, sir, while I confer with counsel here. Mr. Waxman. Yes, Mr. Schumacher. Mr. Schumacher. OK. It’s–it’s third-hand information, hearsay information that has not been corroborated, sir, from a confidential informant. Mr. Waxman. So it’s not reliable information. Mr. Schumacher. It has not been corroborated. Mr. Waxman. I want to tell you something that you may not know, because I don’t think you know our colleague, Maxine Waters, but I’ve known her for many, many years, and I do not believe that she would ever improperly interfere with law enforcement or an investigation, but I do know that she has had a very longstanding concern about racial profiling, and we can read from her letter to the Attorney General that she expressed her concern about any potential racial profiling, and I don’t think that is in any way inappropriate. Mr. Schumacher. May I answer you–you raised the issue about racial profiling, sir. Let me explain a little bit to you about this case. This case involved the Houston 5th ward that is inner city, known as local impact case. This case does not involve enforcement activities where uniform cars or unmarked cars are set up on major thoroughfares to interdict people. There is no interdiction going on. OK. We have maps that we can show you just how inner city the 5th ward is. So I’ve always been a little confused why one of Ms. Waters complaints or allegations had to do with racial profiling, but thank you. Mr. Waxman. Well, the only thing I point out to you is I’m not accusing you or anyone else of racial profiling. All I’m saying is that Representative Maxine Waters has had a very longstanding concern about this issue, and if she raised it as a concern, I think it’s perfectly appropriate for her to raise it as a concern. I don’t know if she made any accusations or not. Maybe she wanted to raise it as a matter that she thought ought to be looked at, and I think that’s quite appropriate, and no one should think anything other than that. I have some time left, and I want to yield to the gentleman from Maryland. Mr. Cummings. Now, Mr. Schumacher, just out of curiosity, you have talked about Mr. Howard, is that correct? You know him? Mr. Schumacher. I know Mr. Howard very well. Mr. Cummings. You understand he’s going to be on the next panel, do you understand that? Mr. Schumacher. I do. Mr. Cummings. Is he an honorable man? Do you consider him to be an honorable man? Mr. Schumacher. Absolutely. Mr. Cummings. Because we’re going to be listening to his testimony. I don’t have a clue as to what he’s going to say, but since there is a question mark that has been left as to what political reasons are and whatever, the various things that you’ve testified to, we’re going to probably have to rely on his testimony, and I was just curious as to your opinion of him. What is your opinion of him, Mr. Stephens? Mr. Stephens. He was our biggest supporter in the beginning. This case was important to him, but he pulled the plug in September. He shut it down. Mr. Cummings. Do you still consider him–I mean, what is his reputation as far as you’re concerned? Mr. Stephens. Like I said to that point and even afterwards, I consider him an honorable man. I don’t know why he did what he did. I just know he did it. Mr. Cummings. Mr. Allen. Mr. Allen. I feel the same way as Mr. Stephens. Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chaison. I hope I’m pronouncing your name correctly. Mr. Chaison. That’s fine. I guess I have great admiration for Mr. Howard. I think he’s an honorable man. I have nothing bad to say about him. Mr. Cummings. Good. Many Thanks. I yield back to the gentleman. Mr. Waxman. Let me just ask one question of the Houston police officers. Why didn’t you continue to pursue the case on your own? Mr. Stephens. You guys have got a bigger tax base than we do in Houston, TX, and to buy the kind of narcotics and do the kind of work we need to do in order to infiltrate this organization, it’s very difficult with Houston city tax base. We don’t have the buy money. We can’t pay the informants like the Federal Government can, and I think, in my opinion, that’s what OCDETF is all about, to help us out. Mr. Waxman. When you were successful in getting these convictions, we were talking about was it based on the joint task force work or your own? Mr. Stephens. Yes, it was. Mr. Waxman. So you felt if there wasn’t this joint task force, you didn’t have the resources, even though you had the lawful authority to conduct the investigation on your own? Mr. Stephens. That’s correct. Mr. Cummings. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. Waxman. Yes. Mr. Cummings. Thank you, Mr. Waxman. How much time do we have? About half a minute. Very well. I yield back. Mr. Burton. We will now go to the 5-minute rounds. Would you just explain real quickly what the “buy money” means? Mr. Stephens. Buy money means money that we can use to purchase narcotics where we don’t effect an arrest immediately. Mr. Burton. Set up an arrest. Mr. Stephens. Correct. Mr. Burton. And the amount of money sometimes is substantial and you don’t have it in your local tax base the funds available to do that? Mr. Stephens. That’s correct. Mr. Burton. And that’s why the Federal money was important. Mr. Stephens. Yes, sir. Mr. Burton. I just want to ask two questions, and then I’ll yield to my colleague from California. First of all, I understand, Mr. Schumacher, that the information you had was third hand, but we did have a campaign finance investigation going on. Can you give a little more detail on what you did hear from your third hand informant–you don’t have to give the name–on what kind of funds were allegedly given? Mr. Schumacher. Excuse me one moment. Yes, sir. It was an amount over 200,000, but as I said earlier, it comes from third hand information and upon—- Mr. Burton. I understand and that’s fine. We just wanted to find out. Is there any way of corroborating that? It’d be hard now? Mr. Schumacher. Unknown at this time. Mr. Burton. OK. One other question and any one of the officers can answer. I understand that you were detailed, Mr. Chaison, to guard Presidents and Vice Presidents when they came to Houston. When Vice President Gore visited the church in question that Mr. Prince had made a $1 million contribution to, do you know, or do you have any knowledge that he met with Mr. Prince or do any of you have any knowledge that during that meeting he had a chance to talk to Mr. Prince? Mr. Chaison. No, I do not. Mr. Burton. Anybody else? Mr. Stephens. I do. Mr. Burton. Mr. Stephens. Mr. Stephens. One of the criminal intelligence division officers that was there–and I had reason to talk to her recently because of a case she’s investigating involving me and a threat on my life–she said that she was present when Mr. Gore visited the church and that James Prince was there. Now, as far as any private meeting between the two, she did not see that. I did ask her if he was there when Mr. Gore was there and she said yes. Mr. Burton. Many Thanks. Mr. Horn. Mr. Horn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it’s been pretty well gone over what happened on the announcement that we’re done that–and I just want to confirm that in one or two yes or noes, did any part of the DEA carry on any of the activities or related activities even though this was being closed down? Mr. Schumacher. Yes, sir. Mr. Horn. OK. So there was something that still was going. OK. How about in the case of the city of Houston’s operations? Mr. Stephens. The only thing we did was get ready for trials that were upcoming. Mr. Horn. OK. Are any of those fulfilling themselves and do they have any relationship with what were talking about this morning here? Mr. Stephens. I don’t understand, sir. Mr. Horn. Well, after the so called shutdown, the question is did any little pieces of it, were they salvageable so you could proceed, based on some information you had on Prince and his company? Mr. Stephens. There were still things that we could have done, yes. Mr. Horn. Well, let me pursue some of them, Mr. Schumacher. You were transferred to a desk job on March 15, 2000? Mr. Schumacher. That’s correct. Mr. Horn. What do you believe was the reason for the transfer? Mr. Schumacher. I believe that someone in DEA headquarters called Mr. Howard and gave him a direct order. Mr. Horn. Is that third, second or firsthand information? Mr. Schumacher. Well, it is reality. I was transferred out of enforcement and went up to special support group, where I have no really qualification to be assigned. Mr. Horn. Did you discuss the Rap-A-Lot investigation with Mr. Howard during that period? Mr. Schumacher. No, sir. Mr. Horn. What did he say, nothing? Wouldn’t reveal who told him to shut it down? Mr. Schumacher. I did not confront Mr. Howard with those issues. Mr. Horn. Well, Mr. Schumacher and Mr. Stephens, let me ask you, in your career dealing with this very difficult drug situation, did any political power of either the national level, the State level or the mayor of Houston ever try to get you to shut down an investigation? Did that ever happen, in your experience, where the mayor picked up the phone or the Governor? Mr. Stephens. No, sir. Mr. Horn. So, as far as Houston is concerned, you stick with it when you have got an investigation going and politicians haven’t improved or accessed themselves to the head of it and told them to shut it down, son, or we won’t give you a budget next year? Mr. Stephens. That’s correct, that has never happened. Mr. Horn. OK. How about in your Federal experience, was this the first time that kind of political intrusion seemed to happen? Mr. Schumacher. Yes, sir. Mr. Horn. So there has been a previous time or is this the only time? Mr. Schumacher. Would you please repeat the question? I thought you asked me if this is the first time I have ever seen it happen and I said yes. Mr. Horn. OK. Then that’s the answer, obviously, I think that’s in the record already. Mr. Burton. Mr. Horn, I’ll come back to you. You will have 5 minutes after the Democrats. Mr. Cummings. Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much. Mr. Schumacher, you said something that was very interesting. When the chairman, I think it was the chairman asked you the question–could the–this alleged contribution of $200,000 to the Vice President from Prince be corroborated, you said the words, “unknown at this time.” What does that mean? Mr. Schumacher. That means that other than having received the information, we haven’t had the time to go forward and try to develop it up to a classified as to its validity and/or to see if it can go any further. We just haven’t had the time to do it. Mr. Cummings. Now, this is the second time in your testimony that you talked about a confidential situation, you realize that? You talked about it a little bit earlier. Mr. Schumacher. I haven’t been counting, but it seems we have been talking about confidential informants quite a bunch. Mr. Cummings. With regard to the Vice President, I think you said something a little bit earlier about him, but let me ask you, did you do your own–I mean, say when you got this information from the third–I think you said third party hearsay, I think that’s what you said, were you doing–did people just come up to you and tell you this stuff or were you going out trying to figure out what happened in the investigation? I mean does this–I mean, how did that come about? Mr. Schumacher. Over the years, I’ve developed, as any of these career drug officers have, rapport with many, many people out there, and not all of them are criminals with criminal records, and I receive phone calls from people with tidbits of information, might get as many as five a day, OK. So it’s not unusual for folks to call. Mr. Cummings. And so when–and because the allegations are serious allegations and because you are sworn and because we are addressing people’s reputations here, as I said when I first began, I’m just wondering, when you hear these tidbits of information, again, you’ve got the press writing, you have got the cameras rolling, do you–I mean, can you tell us in your mind whoever this informant was? I mean, have you gotten information from that person before? Mr. Schumacher. No. Mr. Cummings. No. Mr. Schumacher. No. Mr. Cummings. So this was somebody that you–did you know this person? Mr. Schumacher. In all due respect, sir, the reason I and other drug agents receive information is because we also have a reputation of whenever possible protecting their identity. Mr. Cummings. I’m not asking you the person’s name. Mr. Schumacher. For me to keep going further along this line of questioning, I think that’s where we are heading. Mr. Cummings. That’s not–but see, we have got a situation here where you have presented to us some information that will probably be in some stories and be on the news this evening, and I’m not asking you for the name of somebody. I’m trying to figure out the reliability of the information and how reliable you thought it to be. That’s all I’m asking you, but you said– you just told me something that was very interesting. Although you had just given me this background information about how, you know, people call you and gotten to know them and all that kind of thing, but then you said you had never heard from this person before, is that correct? I’m not asking you who the person was. Mr. Schumacher. Let me try to explain to you or articulate to you my methodology. I receive information. Let us say you call me and you have never called me before. I’m going to evaluate your information. I’m going to catalog it. I’m going to try my best to corroborate it, to see if it helps us develop reasonable suspicion, and then if we can go further to probable cause for search or arrest warrants. So receiving information is really the first step in a multistep process for me. Mr. Cummings. But, Officer, let me–I have got to ask you this question if you don’t mind. We have a situation here where you said that you received information and that you receive information from a lot of people, and I am sure that over the years as you receive information based upon who you receive it from and what they say depends–I mean, that has, I guess, something to how you look into it, and all I’m asking is you said to us somebody gave you some information, you cannot tell us, we understand that, but you also said you had never heard from this person before, and the only thing I was asking you was how reliable do you think the information was, and if you can’t answer that, that’s fine. But I think it’s a reasonable question. Mr. Shays [presiding]. Mr. Cummings, if we could claim the floor again. I just want to state for the record that you were asked this question. You said it’s a third source. We accept it as the third source information. It hasn’t been corroborated, and therefore, I think we can leave it on that basis. Mr. Waxman. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. He was asking a question. You don’t need to answer it. Mr. Shays. You tend to ask points of orders a lot. I just want to point out, I let the gentleman go on. It’s a red light. I don’t want to make a big issue. I’m just affirming to my colleague that this is a third source piece of information. It hasn’t been corroborated, and I think we should accept it as that, and I on this side of the aisle would verify it hasn’t been a verified source of information. Mr. Cummings. Would the gentleman yield for 15 seconds? Mr. Shays. Secure. Mr. Cummings. The only reason I do that is we have seen over and over again in my years on this committee how things, when they get out past here and people begin to be interviewed–I’m talking about Members of our Congress–the next thing you know we have got something that is just–I trust the gentleman, but I don’t know whether that’s always going to be the case. And I just wanted to make sure we cleared it up to the extent that we could. Mr. Shays. I think the gentleman has made his point and made it well. I think the witness responded to a question under oath and said it was a third source of information. It’s my time now. I yield it to Mr. Horn for his 5 minutes–for my 5 minutes. Mr. Horn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m going to have to go back a little bit. You got out of the job, Mr. Schumacher, in March 15th and you didn’t know the reason for the transfer and you did discuss the–or did you discuss the Rap-A-Lot investigation with Mr. Howard during that time period immediately when he was saying this is going to shut down, and did you have a chance to discuss that operation and your investigation? Mr. Schumacher. Mr. Horn, are you referring to September 1999 or the March 2000? Mr. Horn. March 15th. March 15, 2000, when you were transferred. Mr. Schumacher. No, I did not have a conversation with Mr. Howard that I can recall relative to that. Mr. Horn. So he didn’t have anything to say on that? Mr. Schumacher. I don’t recall talking to him about it. Mr. Horn. Did he communicate to you or others that he was shutting down the investigation at this point? Mr. Schumacher. Other than what his comments were in September 1999, we didn’t have any more talk about that. Mr. Horn. Was there any investigative activity going on at the time that was–the shutdown occurred. Mr. Schumacher. Which shutdown? Mr. Horn. Well, the first one, and also after March 15th, was there any further things going on—- Mr. Schumacher. In September 1999, we had some pending judicial matters, OK, reactive in nature as opposed to proactive investigative tactics that would generate more arrests, indictments and seizures of drugs and other evidence. You’re always going to have, after you make seizures or arrests, you’re always going to have administrative/judicial issues to address, and that’s what was addressed after September. Mr. Horn. So did any of the Houston Department try to pick up the threads? Mr. Stephens. No, sir. After September we stopped. Mr. Horn. So we’ve got a situation that looked like it was going to be potentially very lucrative, and it’s just stopped there? Mr. Stephens. Yes, sir. Mr. Horn. To what degree could it ever be picked up again if we didn’t have somebody politically stopping it? What would be–is there enough information there to open up the investigation if you didn’t have political pressure put on you? Mr. Schumacher. I’d have to look at what’s left there and then try to make an educated decision from there, sir. Mr. Horn. And you have been aware that Mr. Howard is briefing–has briefed the committee staff on this case on July 17, 2000, and did Mr. Howard tell you anything about his July 17, 2000, briefing to this committee? Mr. Schumacher. No, sir. Mr. Horn. Let me ask you, Mr. Chaison, you stated to the committee staff during Agent Schumacher’s transfer, “you don’t take experience like that away from enforcement and put it behind a desk.” Could you please elaborate on that statement? Mr. Chaison. Yes. When I came into narcotics, Mr. Schumacher–I didn’t know him at the time–spoke at my narcotics school or training program, and he told me something that was very profound and stays with me today. He said, Remember, whatever you do out there, your supervisors may want you to do one thing, but remember one thing, nobody can tell you how to dance with the devil out there when you’re out there in the middle of it. And that was profound to me, and I found it to be a fact, and so I said with experience, like Jack Schumacher, he and I, we’ve had our disagreements of things and then cooler heads prevail. I admire him a great deal. I think he has great experience in this line of work, and I’m constantly learning from him when there are things to learn. Mr. Horn. That’s a very moving statement. Officer Allen, you told committee staff that you believed a good case was killed because of political pressure. In fact, you stated that in your opinion this was the case, “without a doubt,” and that you said, “cannot see any other reason.” Is that an accurate statement? Mr. Allen. That is correct. Mr. Horn. Was there anything else you’d like to add to that? Mr. Allen. Yes. Based on when we were brought to this task force together, prior to this there had been investigation going on that we had no knowledge of. Once we got into the investigation, we as a group started doing a lot of good work, OK, and this is before–prior to, I guess, they say they’d been investigating maybe 12 years or 10 years in the past, and nothing really concrete had been done. But once we got involved, we made a dent into the problem that was in the 5th ward, and all of a sudden now it stopped, and my question to everyone, why, who did it, and I haven’t gotten an answer yet. Mr. Shays. Mr. Waxman, you have the next 5 minutes. Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Look, Vice President Gore has got his hands full right now. He’s got a lot of concerns. The election is over. We are still trying to decide who really won this election. Just so there’d be no further anxiety that somebody is talking about Vice President Gore having done anything with respect to this investigation, let me just state clearly what we know and what we don’t know. Anything we have ever heard–the only thing we’ve ever heard about Vice President Gore was a statement by Mr. Burton, not by anyone else, that–and I want to quote it again. The statement was that he gives a million dollars to a church, referring to Mr. Prince. The Vice President goes to that church and 2 days later somebody says they’re closing the case. Something’s wrong. They’re blocking us because I think they’re afraid that this might be an embarrassment to the Vice President. That’s an allegation made by the chairman of this committee a month or two ago. So what do we know now in this period of time? We know that there’s no evidence of any oral or written testimony showing that the Vice President even discussed this case with anybody. There’s no evidence of a campaign contribution to the Vice President because none has been on the record, none has been filed from Mr. Prince. The only evidence we have of that is a statement Mr. Schumacher made that he heard from an unsolicited phone call that somebody said that somebody said Vice President Gore got a contribution from Mr. Prince, and that’s all we know. Mr. Schumacher, I also understand from your testimony you never had a chance to corroborate that information; is that correct? Mr. Schumacher. That’s clear. I mean that’s correct, I’m sorry. Mr. Waxman. Did you ever report it to the FBI? DEA doesn’t do violations of campaign finance laws. If you thought there was a criminal problem or any other problem, did you ever report it to the FBI or Justice Department? Mr. Schumacher. Mr. Waxman, because it was made against Vice President Al Gore didn’t mean anything special to me. I investigate, try to solve crimes, OK, not the names of those folks. Mr. Waxman. It shouldn’t make any difference to you whether it’s the Vice President or any other citizen, but you got an unsolicited tip from somebody about a campaign contribution. Did you ever pass it on to the people in law enforcement that might look into whether there was something improper if it happened? Mr. Schumacher. It was passed on. Mr. Waxman. To? Mr. Schumacher. The Houston homicide division. Mr. Waxman. And you don’t know whether they passed it on to the FBI to look into it? Mr. Schumacher. I have no knowledge of that. Mr. Waxman. It just seems to me that we ought to examine what may be the story today of this hearing, Vice President Gore, based on the allegations that were made a couple of months ago had something to do with the possible shutting down of the investigation on drug charges. I think this is pretty flimsy, and worse than that, there’s just no evidence. I want to yield to Mr. Tierney at this point. Mr. Tierney. I thank you, Mr. Waxman. I have been listening to this entire thing. There’s very little to say because I think the point you just made is abundantly clear. As long as we continue on this discussion, questions back and forth just seem to drive that point home, and I think it’s pretty much made, no need to continue on. So thank you. Mr. Waxman. The only thing I say, any statement about Representative Maxine Waters is also quite flimsy, because all we know about her is that she’s had a longstanding concern about racial profiling. She raised that issue. If someone said they were under political pressure, maybe because it was Maxine Waters’ letter, I see no basis for them to make that statement if it was stated. We’ll ask later Mr. Howard whether that, in fact, was his statement or whether it was his belief, but I don’t know, based on what Representative Waters had expressed and her concern about this case, from which anyone can reach a conclusion, that there’s anything improper in raising those points. I’m going to yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Shays. Many Thanks. It’s Mr. Horn’s time, but I’d just like a minutes of that time if I could. Mr. Waxman. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Shays. It’s Mr. Horn’s time and Mr. Horn, if I could have a minute. Mr. Horn. Secure. Mr. Shays. Many Thanks. I just want to say the basis of this hearing is to understand why an investigation was stopped, and it is clear the investigation was stopped in part because of a complaint, however well intended, by a Member of Congress, and this Member of Congress ended up having the deposition taken by the person you were investigating in her office, and that’s a matter of public record. And so the question is, did that have an impact, and Mr. Schumacher, you’re telling us, and the ranking member has made it very clear, trying to imply, that maybe you were taken off while you were being put under investigation. The investigation was a complaint by a Member of Congress, and what followed was this investigation ended, and that’s the challenge, and none of us on this side of the aisle have brought up the Vice President, and my colleagues on the other side have tended to bring this up again and again. Frankly, the Vice President isn’t the issue. The issue is why did this investigation stop? Why did two men, Mr. Allen, Mr. Chaison and Mr. Stephens, risk their lives every day and get to a point where you had witnesses, you had people arrested who possibly could have turned evidence for you, and that ended. So it’s an outrage and we intend to find out why this happened. Mr. Horn. Mr. Horn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Officer Stephens, do you believe that the Rap-A-Lot organization was finally starting to lose some of its infallibility and ability to evade law enforcement when the plug was pulled on this investigation? Mr. Stephens. Yes, I do. Mr. Horn. All of the officers, do each of you believe that the decision to reduce the effort going into Rap-A-Lot investigation has a chilling effect on law enforcement efforts? Mr. Allen. Yes, I do, especially after the CD came out that was mentioned earlier. There are a lot of people out in the 5th ward area that listen to these rap songs, and they’re specifically saying that this investigation has been stopped and they have control over all officers and the things that officers do. Mr. Horn. Any other comments by any of the officers? Mr. Stephens, Mr. Schumacher, was morale just taken and going to the bottom after this shutdown situation? Mr. Schumacher. I have read the lyrics of the song. Sergeant Stephens and myself personally arrested Mr. Jordan, OK. I think that to some folks within my inner circle of family and friends, it caused them some concern, and they to me were deemed in a threatening manner. Mr. Horn. Was the investigative effort reduced in the Rap- A-Lot matter in late 1999, did that just get–go off in the latter part of 1999? Mr. Schumacher. Yes, sir. Mr. Horn. But I think I hear that can be started up if you have someone that isn’t always playing politics. Mr. Schumacher. We’d have to take a hard look at it. Mr. Horn. And you’re convinced and others are convinced, I take it, that it was political pressure that was behind there? Mr. Schumacher. That’s my personal opinion, yes, sir. Mr. Horn. Did Mr. Howard ever say that to you? Mr. Schumacher. He used the word “politics,” yes, sir. Mr. Horn. And that had never happened before because–from either the Houston police or the DEA that you know of? Mr. Schumacher. That I’m aware of, no. Mr. Horn. The acting chairman recently made a comment on our friends on the other side of the aisle. You should know that chairman Burton has said none of us are to even mention the Vice President in this hearing because we didn’t want to have a political issue here, but my–starting with the ranking member who quoted something from the chairman several weeks ago, and then our friends across the aisle keep mentioning it, I find it rather interesting and wonder if they’re maybe all secret Bradley delegates or something, but it surprised me. I yield back. Mr. Shays. Many Thanks. Mr. Tierney, I believe the time is yours. You pass. Mr. LaTourette, do you have other questions? Mr. LaTourette. I do. Mr. Chaison, I just have a couple of questions. You indicated that the artist, an artist I guess we’re going to put in italics, artist is Brad “Scarface” Jordan; is that correct? Mr. Chaison. That is correct. Mr. LaTourette. I don’t remember seeing any of his hits at the local music store in Ohio. Is this something that I can buy on Amazon.com? How would I get ahold of this CD to listen to what it is he has to say? Mr. Chaison. I would think that any of the loJames Prince Jr. accused of DWI, bringing weapon to county jail
HOUSTON — James Prince Jr., son of Houston-based Rap-a-Lot Records CEO James Prince Sr., is charged with drunk driving and taking a firearm to a correctional facility, police records say.
Prince Jr. is accused of bringing DWI and a prohibited item into a correctional facility.
Officials said Prince Jr. left a private hotel party near 1600 West Loop South carrying a clear glass with alcohol in it. A Houston police officer said Prince Jr. showed signs of intoxication, slurred speech and an unsteady demeanor. The officer warned Prince Jr. that he was too drunk to drive his vehicle, but Prince got into his vehicle anyway and drove away, officials said.
The officer followed Prince Jr. in a private vehicle and called for a designated patrol unit, officials said. A Houston Police Department patrol pulled Prince Jr. over and searched him several times for weapons, but a handgun was found in his genital area at the final checkpoint, officials said.
advertisement
Officials said officers asked Prince Jr. several times if he had guns and he did not tell them.
He is being held in the Harris County Jail. His bail was set at $25,000.
Related searches to Fact Check Is J Prince Jr Going To Jail Fans Believe The Rapper Is Arrested
Information related to the topic Fact Check Is J Prince Jr Going To Jail Fans Believe The Rapper Is Arrested
Here are the search results of the thread Fact Check Is J Prince Jr Going To Jail Fans Believe The Rapper Is Arrested from Bing. You can read more if you want.
You have just come across an article on the topic Fact Check Is J Prince Jr Going To Jail Fans Believe The Rapper Is Arrested. If you found this article useful, please share it. Thank you very much.
Articles compiled by Bangkokbikethailandchallenge.com. See more articles in category: DIGITAL MARKETING