This report describes homegrown violent jihadists and the plots and attacks that have occurred since 9/11. For this report, "homegrown" and "domestic" are terms that describe terrorist activity or plots perpetrated within the United States or abroad by American citizens, legal permanent residents, or visitors radicalized largely within the United States. The report also discusses the radicalization process and the forces driving violent extremist activity. It analyzes post-9/11 domestic jihadist terrorism and describes law enforcement and intelligence efforts to combat terrorism and the challenges associated with those efforts. It also outlines actions underway to build trust and partnership between community groups and government agencies and the tensions that may occur between law enforcement and engagement activities.

The U.S. Senate has been investigating case histories on the workings of the commodities markets, to ensure well-functioning markets with market-based prices, effective hedging tools, and safeguards against market manipulation, conflicts of interest, and excessive speculation. This is the report of an investigation of the recent rise of banks and bank holding companies as major players in the physical markets for commodities and related businesses. It presents case studies of three major U.S. bank holding companies, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley, that over the last decade were the largest bank holding company participants in physical commodity activities. The report shows how the tradition of separating banks from commerce is eroding, and along with it, protections from risks and potentially abusive conduct. It also shows how the Federal Reserve has taken insufficient steps to address this problem. Tables and figures. This is a print on demand report.

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) is an independent bipartisan agency within the executive branch established by the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. The Board is comprised of four part-time members and a full-time chairman, all appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. On June 5, 2013, the British newspaper The Guardian published the first of a series of articles based on unauthorized disclosures of classified documents by Edward Snowden, a contractor for the National Security Agency ("NSA"). The article described an NSA program to collect millions of telephone records, including records about purely domestic calls. Over the course of the next several days, there were additional articles regarding this program as well as another NSA program referred to in leaked documents as "PRISM." These disclosures caused a great deal of concern both over the extent to which they damaged national security and over the nature and scope of the surveillance programs they purported to reveal. In response to the congressional and presidential requests, the Board immediately initiated a study of the 215 and 702 programs and the operation of the FISA court. This Report contains the results of the Board's 215 program study as well as our analysis and recommendations regarding the FISC's operation.

This is a printed copy of the "Trial Memorandum Of President Donald J. Trump In Proceedings Before The United States Senate" as produced by the Office of White House Counsel in the Impeachment proceedings before the United States Senate. The Articles of Impeachment now before the Senate are an affront to the Constitution and to our democratic institutions. The Articles themselves--and the rigged process that brought them here--are a brazenly political act by House Democrats that must be rejected. They debase the grave power of impeachment and disdain the solemn responsibility that power entails. Anyone having the most basic respect for the sovereign will of the American people would shudder at the enormity of casting a vote to impeach a duly elected President. By contrast, upon tallying their votes, House Democrats jeered until they were scolded into silence by the Speaker. The process that brought the articles here violated every precedent and every principle of fairness followed in impeachment inquiries for more than 150 years. Even so, all that House Democrats have succeeded in proving is that the President did absolutely nothing wrong.