[House Report 115-74]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
115th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 115-74
======================================================================
RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY REQUESTING THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTING THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL TO TRANSMIT, RESPECTIVELY, CERTAIN DOCUMENTS TO THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RELATING TO COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE GOVERNMENT
OF RUSSIA
_______
March 31, 2017.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
_______
Mr. Goodlatte, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
ADVERSE REPORT
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H. Res. 184]
[Including Committee Cost Estimate]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
resolution (H. Res. 184) of inquiry requesting the President
and directing the Attorney General to transmit, respectively,
certain documents to the House of Representatives relating to
communications with the government of Russia, having considered
the same, reports unfavorably thereon with an amendment and
recommends that the resolution as amended not be agreed to.
CONTENTS
Page
The Amendment.................................................... 2
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 2
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 2
Hearings......................................................... 5
Committee Consideration.......................................... 5
Committee Votes.................................................. 5
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 6
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 6
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 6
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 6
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings.............................. 7
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 7
Advisory on Earmarks............................................. 7
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 7
Dissenting Views................................................. 7
The Amendment
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:
That the President is requested, and the Attorney General of the United
States is directed, to transmit, respectively (in a manner appropriate
to classified information, if the President or Attorney General
determines appropriate), to the House of Representatives, not later
than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution, copies
of any document, record, memo, correspondence, or other communication
in their possession, or any portion of any such communication, that
refers or relates to the following:
(1) Any meeting or communication that occurred between
Senator Jeff Sessions and any representative of the Russian
government, including his meetings with the Russian Ambassador
to the United States, Sergey I. Kislyak, on July 18, 2016, and
September 8, 2016.
(2) Senator Sessions' testimony before the Senate Committee
on the Judiciary on January 10, 2017, including but not limited
to his statement that he ``did not have communications with the
Russians''.
(3) Senator Sessions' written response to Senator Patrick
Leahy's letter of January 17, 2017.
(4) Attorney General Sessions' letter of March 6, 2017, to
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
(5) Senator Sessions' preparation for confirmation hearings
before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, with respect to
the subject of contact between President Trump's campaign and
any representative of the Russian government.
(6) Attorney General Sessions' recusal from any investigation
related to the 2016 Presidential election, but not from other
related matters, and the implementation of that recusal.
(7) The application of part 600 of title 28, Code of Federal
Regulations, to any case involving the 2016 Presidential
election or any related matter.
(8) Any meeting that occurred between any employee of
President Trump's campaign or transition team and any
representative of the Russian government, including any meeting
that involved Donald J. Trump, Michael Flynn, Jared Kushner,
Carter Page, J.D. Gordon, Richard Burt, Paul Manafort, Roger
Stone, or Michael Cohen.
Purpose and Summary
House Resolution 184 is a non-binding resolution of inquiry
that requests that the Trump Administration provide the House
of Representatives with certain documents related to
communications with the government of Russia.
Background and Need for the Legislation
Resolutions of inquiry, if properly drafted, are given
privileged parliamentary status in the House. This means that,
under certain circumstances, a resolution of inquiry can be
considered on the House floor even if the committee to which it
was referred has not ordered the resolution reported and the
majority party's leadership has not scheduled it for
consideration. Clause 7 of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives requires the committee to which the
resolution is referred to act on the resolution within 14
legislative days, or a motion to discharge the committee from
consideration is considered privileged on the floor of the
House. In calculating the days available for committee
consideration, the day of introduction and the day of discharge
are not counted.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Wm. Holmes Brown, et al., House Practice: A Guide to the Rules,
Precedents, and Procedures of the House ch. 49, Sec. 6, p. 834 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Rules and precedents of the House, a resolution
of inquiry is a means by which the House may request
information from the President or the head of one of the
executive departments. According to Deschler's Precedents, it
is a ``simple resolution making a direct request or demand of
the President or the head of an executive department to furnish
the House of Representatives with specific factual information
in the possession of the executive branch.''\2\ Such
resolutions must ask for facts, documents, or specific
information; they may not be used to request an opinion or
require an investigation.\3\ Resolutions of inquiry are not
akin to subpoenas, they have no legal force, and thus
compliance by the Executive Branch with the House's request for
information is purely voluntary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\7 Deschler's Precedents of the United States House of
Representatives, H. Doc. No. 94-661, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., ch. 24,
Sec. 8.
\3\A resolution that seeks more than factual information does not
enjoy privileged status. Brown, supra note 1, at 833-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to a study conducted by the Congressional
Research Service (CRS), between 1947 and 2011, 290 resolutions
of inquiry were introduced in the House.\4\ Within this period,
CRS found that ``two periods in particular, 1971-1975 and 2003-
2006, saw the highest levels of activity on resolutions of
inquiry'' and that the ``Committees on Armed Services, Foreign
Affairs, and the Judiciary have received the largest share of
references.''\5\ CRS further found that ``in recent Congresses,
such resolutions have overwhelmingly become a tool of the
minority party in the House.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Christopher M. Davis, Congressional Research Service,
Resolutions of Inquiry: An Analysis of Their Use in the House, 1947-
2011 at i (2012).
\5\Id.
\6\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Committee has a number of choices after a resolution of
inquiry is referred to it. It may vote on the resolution up or
down as is or it may amend it, and it may report the resolution
favorably, unfavorably, or with no recommendation. The fact
that a committee reports a resolution of inquiry adversely does
not necessarily mean that the committee opposes looking into
the matter. In the past, resolutions of inquiry have frequently
been reported adversely for several reasons. The two most
common reasons are substantial compliance and competing
investigations.
House Resolution 184 essentially seeks two types of
information from the Trump Administration. First, it requests
documents regarding whether then-Senator Jeff Sessions misled
the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding his contacts with
Russian officials during the consideration of his confirmation
to be Attorney General. Second, the resolution requests
documents related to Russia's interference with the 2016
Presidential election and alleged collusion with the Trump
campaign.
In regard to the request for documents related to the
allegation that then-Senator Sessions misled the Senate
Judiciary Committee, the resolution appears to be a waste of
valuable time and resources of the Committee, the House, and,
if acted upon by the House, the Trump Administration. The
Senate Judiciary Committee has examined Sessions' testimony and
responses to questions for the record and has determined that
he has cleared up any confusion regarding his responses to
questions regarding his contacts with Russia. After receiving a
letter from Attorney General Sessions supplementing his Senate
testimony,\7\ Chairman Grassley determined that Sessions took
``quick action to clear up confusion about his statement'' and
that the committee has no plans to ask Sessions to appear
before the committee before its annual oversight hearing with
the Justice Department.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Letter from the Hon. Jeff Sessions, Attorney General of the
United States, to the Hon. Charles E. Grassley and Hon. Diane
Feinstein, Senate Committee on the Judiciary (Mar. 6, 2017).
\8\Press Release, Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, Attorney General
Clears Confusion on Hearing Testimony (Mar. 6, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, a careful examination of the responses at issue
makes clear that while some could allow themselves to be
confused by Sessions' responses, they were not misleading.
Senator Leahy asked Sessions whether he had been ``in contact
with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government
about the 2016 election.''\9\ Sessions responded that he had
not.\10\ Senator Franken asked Sessions a question regarding
his communications as a campaign ``surrogate.''\11\ Sessions
responded that while he has been called a campaign surrogate,
he did not have any communications with the Russians as a
campaign surrogate.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Nomination of Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United
States, Questions for the Record from Senator Leahy at 26 (Jan. 17,
2017) (emphasis added).
\10\Id.
\11\Sessions, supra note 7.
\12\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, Sessions was asked specifically about
contacts with Russia regarding, or on behalf of, the Trump
campaign. He was not asked about general contacts he may have
had with Russia outside of the context of the Trump campaign,
such as contacts he may have had as part of his role as a U.S.
Senator. Accordingly, the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded
that there does not appear to be anything misleading about his
answers.
As to the resolution's request for information regarding
alleged ties between the Trump campaign and transition team and
the Russian government, there are multiple investigations into
these matters that are ongoing and it would be inappropriate
for this Committee or the House to seek documents related to
those investigations through a resolution of inquiry at this
time. Both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees are
conducting investigations into Russian interference in the 2016
election and the alleged ties between the Trump campaign and
Russian officials. Moreover, in testimony before the House
Intelligence Committee, the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, James Comey, confirmed that the FBI ``is
investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in
the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating
the nature of any links between individuals associated with the
Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was
any coordination between the campaign and Russia's
efforts.''\13\ The Judiciary Committee strongly believes that
these ongoing investigations by the Legislative and Executive
Branches should be allowed to proceed, as warranted, without
outside interference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\Hearing on Russian Active Measures Investigation Before H.
Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence, 115th Cong. (2017) (statement
of James Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the fact that two congressional committees and our
nation's chief law enforcement agency are investigating this
matter, there is no reason for the House to request this
information through a resolution of inquiry. The Judiciary
Committee and the House have more important business to attend
to than needlessly requesting information that is already
available to those actually investigating this matter. The
Judiciary Committee will investigate any credible allegations
of misconduct by members of the Executive Branch to the extent
such allegations fall within this Committee's jurisdiction.
However, the Committee will not do so through politically-
charged resolutions of inquiry that could jeopardize the
integrity of ongoing investigations.
Hearings
The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H. Res.
184.
Committee Consideration
On March 29, 2017, the Committee met in open session and
ordered House Resolution 184 unfavorably reported, with an
amendment, by a roll call vote of 15 to 11, a quorum being
present.
Committee Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the
following roll call votes occurred during the Committee's
consideration of H. Res. 184.
1. Motion to report H. Res. 184 unfavorably to the House.
Approved 15 to 11.
ROLLCALL NO. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman................... X ...... .......
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI).................... X ...... .......
Mr. Smith (TX)................................. ...... ...... .......
Mr. Chabot (OH)................................ ...... ...... .......
Mr. Issa (CA).................................. ...... ...... .......
Mr. King (IA).................................. ...... ...... .......
Mr. Franks (AZ)................................ X ...... .......
Mr. Gohmert (TX)............................... X ...... .......
Mr. Jordan (OH)................................ X ...... .......
Mr. Poe (TX)................................... ...... ...... .......
Mr. Chaffetz (UT).............................. X ...... .......
Mr. Marino (PA)................................ ...... ...... .......
Mr. Gowdy (SC)................................. X ...... .......
Mr. Labrador (ID).............................. X ...... .......
Mr. Farenthold (TX)............................ ...... ...... .......
Mr. Collins (GA)............................... X ...... .......
Mr. DeSantis (FL).............................. ...... ...... .......
Mr. Buck (CO).................................. X ...... .......
Mr. Ratcliffe (TX)............................. X ...... .......
Ms. Roby (AL).................................. X ...... .......
Mr. Gaetz (FL)................................. X ...... .......
Mr. Johnson (LA)............................... X ...... .......
Mr. Biggs (AZ)................................. X ...... .......
Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member.......... ...... X .......
Mr. Nadler (NY)................................ ...... X .......
Ms. Lofgren (CA)............................... ...... ...... .......
Ms. Jackson Lee (TX)........................... ...... ...... .......
Mr. Cohen (TN)................................. ...... X .......
Mr. Johnson (GA)............................... ...... ...... .......
Mr. Deutch (FL)................................ ...... X .......
Mr. Gutierrez (IL)............................. ...... ...... .......
Ms. Bass (CA).................................. ...... ...... .......
Mr. Richmond (LA).............................. ...... ...... .......
Mr. Jeffries (NY).............................. ...... X .......
Mr. Cicilline (RI)............................. ...... X .......
Mr. Swalwell (CA).............................. ...... X .......
Mr. Lieu (CA).................................. ...... X .......
Mr. Raskin (MD)................................ ...... X .......
Ms. Jayapal (WA)............................... ...... X .......
Mr. Schneider (IL)............................. ...... X .......
------------------------
Total...................................... 15 11 .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is inapplicable because this resolution does
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax
expenditures.
Committee Cost Estimate
In compliance with clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that
implementing this non-binding resolution would not result in
any significant costs. The Congressional Budget Office did not
provide a cost estimate for the resolution.
Duplication of Federal Programs
No provision of H. Res. 184 establishes or reauthorizes a
program of the Federal government known to be duplicative of
another Federal program, a program that was included in any
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance.
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings
The Committee estimates that H. Res. 184 specifically
directs to be completed no specific rule makings within the
meaning of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 551.
Performance Goals and Objectives
The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H. Res.
184 requests certain documents from the Trump administration
related to communications with the government of Russia.
Advisory on Earmarks
In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, H. Res. 184 does not contain any
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of Rule XXI.
Section-by-Section Analysis
The following discussion describes the resolution as
reported by the Committee.
H. Res. 184, a non-binding resolution of inquiry, requests
that the President and the Attorney General of the United
States transmit certain documents and communications to the
House of Representatives related to communications with the
government of Russia.
Dissenting Views
At his confirmation hearing, then-Senator Jefferson
Beauregard Sessions III testified explicitly that he had not
met with Russian officials in the past year. In a written
response to questions for the record, he reiterated his denial.
When the Washington Post reported otherwise, Attorney General
Sessions admitted to having met with the Russian ambassador on
two occasions but failed to mention a third meeting, clearly
documented in the public record.\1\ He has since recused
himself from any pending investigation related to the
presidential campaign. A number of critical questions remain.
Why did the Attorney General give false and misleading
testimony? Why is his explanation for that testimony
incomplete? Is his recusal sufficient to address his ongoing
relationship with President Trump? Why have so many individuals
in President Trump's immediate orbit made contact with the
Russian government? Why have so many of them initially denied
it?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Adam Entous et al., Sessions met with Russian envoy twice last
year, encounters he later did not disclose, Wash. Post, Mar. 1, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 184 directs the White House and the Department of
Justice to transmit information related to the Attorney
General's testimony, the precise scope of his recusal, and
contacts between Trump campaign officials and the Russian
government. The Resolution is designed to help our Committee
answer those questions. As Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), the
sponsor of this Resolution, explained, the ``House is a
separate but coequal branch of government. We do not work for
the Trump administration; we work for the American people. And
the American people deserve to know if the Trump team colluded
with Putin's Russia. That includes Jeff Sessions.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Unofficial Tr. of Markup of H.R. 1667; H.R. 1695; H. Res. 184;
and H. Res. 203 before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong. (Mar.
29, 2017) (statement of Rep. Hakeem Jeffries) [hereinafter Markup Tr.].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In complete disregard of these concerns, the Majority
refuses to conduct routine oversight over the Trump
Administration and, instead, offers various excuses for voting
against H. Res. 184: the resolution ``does not seem to be very
bipartisan;''\3\ it is ``inappropriate'' for our Committee to
seek documents that may have been requested by the intelligence
committees and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as
they investigate President Trump's various connections to the
Russian government;\4\ and resolutions of inquiry are a ``waste
of time.''\5\ Each of these arguments, however, is an
abdication of this Committee's responsibility to oversee the
integrity of the Executive Branch and, in particular, the
United States Department of Justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Id. (statement of Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner).
\4\Id. (statement of Chairman Robert Goodlatte).
\5\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons and those discussed below, we
respectfully dissent.
DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
DESCRIPTION
H. Res. 184 directs the President and the Attorney General
to transmit to the House, not later than 14 days after the
enactment of the resolution, copies of any document, record,
memo correspondence, or other communication of the White House
or the Department of Justice, respectively, that refers or
relates to:
(1) Any meeting or communication between Attorney
General Sessions and any representative of the Russian
government, including his meetings with the Russian
Ambassador to the United States, Sergey I. Kislyak;
(2) The Attorney General's testimony before the
Senate Committee on the Judiciary on January 10, 2017,
including but not limited to his statement that he
``did not have communications with the Russians'';
(3) The Attorney General's written response to
questions posed by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) in a
letter dated January 17, 2017;
(4) The Attorney General's letter of March 6, 2017,
to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary;
(5) The Attorney General's preparation for his
confirmation hearings, with respect to the subject of
contact between President Trump's campaign and any
representative of the Russian government;
(6) The Attorney General's decision to recuse himself
from investigation related to the 2016 presidential
election, but not from other matters;
(7) The application of the federal regulations
governing the appointment of special counsel by the
Department of Justice; and
(8) Any meeting that occurred between any employee of
President Trump's campaign or transition team and any
representative of the Russian government.
The Resolution expressly permits the White House and the
Department of Justice to transmit this information in a
classified format if necessary.
BACKGROUND
Under the rules and precedents of the House, a resolution
of inquiry is used to obtain information from the executive
branch. A resolution of inquiry is directed at the President of
the United States or the head of a Cabinet-level agency,
requesting facts within the control of the executive branch.\6\
As a ``simple resolution,'' designated by ``H. Res.,'' a
resolution of inquiry does not carry the force of law.
``Compliance by the executive branch with the House's request
is voluntary, resting largely on a sense of comity between co-
equal branches of government and a recognition of the necessity
for Congress to be well-informed as it legislates.''\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Christopher M. Davis, Resolutions of Inquiry: An Analysis of
Their Use in the House, 1947-2011, Cong. Research Service, May 15, 2012
(R40879).
\7\Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Rules afford resolutions of inquiry a privileged
parliamentary status. A Member files a resolution of inquiry
like any other legislation. The resolution is then referred to
the proper committee of jurisdiction. If the committee does not
report the resolution to the House within 14 legislative days
of its introduction, however, a motion to discharge the
resolution from committee can be made on the House floor.\8\ In
practice, then, even when the Majority opposes a resolution of
inquiry, a committee may mark it up and report it--perhaps
adversely--to prevent its sponsor from making a privileged
motion to call up the legislation on the House floor.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\House Rule XIII, clause 7.
\9\Davis, supra note 6, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Resolution is a simple request for information from the
White House and the Department of Justice. By its nature, a
resolution of inquiry cannot draw conclusions about the
Attorney General's testimony or the Administration's meetings
with Russian officials. Our Committee has primary
responsibility for oversight of the Department of Justice. No
aspect of that responsibility is more important than ensuring
the independence and integrity of the Office of the Attorney
General.
REASONS WHY H. RES. 184 IS NEEDED
Given the events of the past few months, at least three
matters merit the Committee's immediate attention. First,
Attorney General Sessions has not fully explained his false
testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Second, the
scope of the Attorney General's recusal from matters related to
his testimony may not be sufficient to address his ongoing
conflicts of interest. Finally, the Attorney General is one of
several individuals involved in the Trump campaign to have
concealed his meetings with a representative of the Russian
government. H. Res. 184 would have helped Members to obtain the
information they need to investigate these issues in earnest as
it asks for information about the Attorney General's meetings
with Russian officials, his testimony before the Senate
Judiciary Committee, his later ``clarification'' of that
testimony, and his preparation for his confirmation hearings
with respect to reports of communications between the Trump
campaign and the Russian government. This information is
critical to understanding why the Attorney General twice gave
false testimony, and whether his attempt to correct that false
testimony is adequate.
I. Attorney General Sessions Failed To Provide an Adequate Explanation
for His False Testimony Before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
On January 10, 2017, at the Attorney General's confirmation
hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Al
Franken (D-MN) engaged in an exchange with then-Senator
Sessions:
Franken: CNN just published a story alleging that the
intelligence community provided documents to the
president-elect last week that included information
that, quote, ``Russian operatives claimed to have
compromising personal and financial information about
Mr. Trump.'' The documents also allegedly say, quote,
``There was a continuing exchange of information during
the campaign between Trump's surrogates and
intermediaries for the Russian government.''
Now, again, I'm telling you this as it's coming out,
so you know. But if it's true, it's obviously extremely
serious and if there is any evidence that anyone
affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with
the Russian government in the course of this campaign,
what will you do?
Sessions: I'm not aware of any of those activities. I
have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that
campaign and I did not have communications with the
Russians, and I'm unable to comment on it.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Attorney General Nomination, Hearing before the S. Comm. on the
Judiciary, 115th Cong (2017) (exchange between Sen. Al Franken and Sen.
Jeff Sessions) (emphasis added).
Attorney General Sessions later responded to several
questions for the record posed by Senator Patrick Leahy. With
respect to any contact with the Russian government, the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General's response was categorical:
Several of the President-Elect's nominees or senior
advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact
with anyone connected to any part of the Russian
government about the 2016 election, either before or
after election day?
RESPONSE: No.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Id. (response to questions for the record from Sen. Patrick
Leahy, submitted Jan. 17, 2017).
Both of these statements are demonstrably false.
Then-Senator Jeff Sessions formally endorsed Donald Trump
for president on February 28, 2016.\12\ On March 3, 2016, Mr.
Trump named Senator Sessions as chairman of his campaign's
national security advisory committee.\13\ From that point
forward, the Attorney General was a senior adviser to and
surrogate for the Trump campaign.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Eli Stokols, Sen. Jeff Sessions endorses Trump, Politico, Feb.
28, 2016.
\13\Philip Bump, What Jeff Sessions said about Russia, and when,
Wash. Post, Mar. 2, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 18, 2016, on the first day of the Republican
National Convention, the Heritage Foundation hosted a panel
conversation on European relations. One delegate wrote: ``Much
of the discussion focused on Russia's incursions into Ukraine
and Georgia,'' and ``[s]everal ambassadors asked for names of
people who might impact foreign policy under Trump.''\14\ At
the conclusion of this event, contrary to his testimony,
Attorney General Sessions met and spoke with Russian Ambassador
Sergey Kislyak.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\Victor Ashe, Delegate diary: Side events more interesting than
the convention, Knoxville News Sentinel, July 19, 2016.
\15\Adam Entous et al., Sessions met with Russian envoy twice last
year, encounters he later did not disclose, Wash. Post, Mar. 1, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 8, 2016, the Attorney General met again with
Ambassador Kislyak in his Senate office.\16\ According to the
Attorney General, he and the Ambassador discussed terrorism and
Russian activity in Ukraine, but no ``specific political
discussions.''\17\ By September 2016, reports that Russian
hackers had gained access to servers at the Democratic National
Committee had been in the news for months.\18\ However,
according to his own account, Attorney General Sessions made no
mention of this Russian operation to the Russian ambassador.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Id.
\17\Aaron Blake, Transcript of Jeff Sessions' recusal news
conference, annotated, Wash. Post, Mar. 2, 2017.
\18\See, e.g., Ellen Nakashima, Russian government hackers
penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump, Wash. Post, June
14, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Attorney General testified--in person and in writing--
that he had made no contacts with Russian officials during the
course of the campaign. That testimony was clearly false. His
later attempts to reconcile his testimony to the facts are
equally puzzling. As Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) pointed out,
``as a lawyer and a long-term Member of Congress who has
participated in many confirmation hearings, Jeff Sessions
should know better.''\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Markup Tr. (statement of Rep. Pramilla Jayapal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In several statements after the Washington Post reported on
his two meetings with Ambassador Kislyak, the Attorney General
argued: ``I never had meetings with Russian operatives or
Russian intermediaries about the Trump campaign.''\20\ That
phrasing does not reflect the testimony given by the Attorney
General at his confirmation hearing: ``I did not have
communications with the Russians.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\Aaron Blake, Transcript of Jeff Sessions' recusal news
conference, annotated, Wash. Post, Mar. 2, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Later, a spokesperson for the Trump Administration claimed
that the Attorney General was asked ``about communications
between Russia and the Trump campaign--not about meetings he
took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services
Committee.''\21\ The Washington Post contacted the other 26
members of the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2016. Of the
20 who responded, none had met with the Russian Ambassador.\22\
The Attorney General was both associated with the Trump
campaign and aware of the Russian government's efforts to
influence the election during both of the meetings he later
acknowledged. It is not clear how his also being a sitting
Senator would give the Attorney General license to give the
unqualified impression that he ``did not have communications
with the Russians.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\Adam Entous et al., Sessions met with Russian envoy twice last
year, encounters he later did not disclose, Wash. Post, Mar. 1, 2017.
\22\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 6, 2017, Attorney General Sessions wrote to the
Senate Judiciary Committee to supplement his testimony. ``My
answer was correct. . . . I was surprised by the allegations in
[Senator Franken's] question, which I had not heard
before.''\23\ It strains belief to suggest that a U.S. Senator,
active in the campaign and nominated to be Attorney General,
first learned of widely reported allegations of contact between
the Trump campaign and the Russian government while sitting at
his confirmation hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\Letter from U.S. Attorney General Jefferson Sessions to Sen.
Charles Grassley (R-IA), Chairman, S. Comm. on the Judiciary, and Sen.
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ranking Member, S. Comm. on the Judiciary
(Mar. 6, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Attorney General's supplemental testimony discloses two
meetings with the Russian ambassador--at the convention in July
2016 and in his office in September 2016.\24\ It does not,
however, acknowledge the possibility of a third meeting with
Ambassador Kislyak. On April 27, 2016, President Trump gave a
foreign policy speech at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC,
stating, ``I believe an easing of tensions, and improved
relations with Russia--from a position of strength only--is
possible, absolutely possible. Common sense says this cycle,
this horrible cycle of hostility must end and ideally will end
soon. Good for both countries.''\25\ Ambassador Kislyak sat in
the front row for that speech.\26\ The Attorney General was
also in attendance. According to one account, ``at a reception
in the Senate Room of the Mayflower, a number of politicians
and Trump advisers, such as Senator Jeff Sessions and
ambassadors, congregated before the event.''\27\ Neither the
Attorney General's initial testimony nor his supplementary
statement account for any conversation that may have taken
place at this April meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\Id.
\25\Transcript: Donald Trump's Foreign Policy Speech, N.Y. Times,
Apr. 27, 2016.
\26\Greg Miller et al., National security adviser Flynn discussed
sanctions with Russian ambassador, despite denials, officials say,
Wash. Post, Feb. 9, 2017.
\27\Jacob Heilbrunn, Why I Hosted Trump's Foreign Policy Speech,
Politico, Apr. 27, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the House of Representatives, our Committee has primary
responsibility for overseeing the Department of Justice. It is
incumbent on the Committee to seek the information necessary to
fill the gaps in the Attorney General's account. H. Res. 184
addresses several lingering questions: How could the Attorney
General possibly have been surprised that the topic of Russia
would come up at his confirmation hearing? Why did he give the
impression that he had never met with the Russian Ambassador?
Why did it take three weeks to even attempt to correct the
record? Is the record now complete, given the possibility of
additional meetings between the Attorney General and the
Russian Ambassador?
Although Chairman Goodlatte asserts that ``a resolution of
inquiry is an inappropriate and really ineffective method for
conducting effective oversight,''\28\ we cannot defer our
oversight responsibilities to any other agency or congressional
committee. By voting to report H. Res. 184 unfavorably, the
Majority has blocked the measure from reaching the House floor
and signaled an unwillingness to even ask about the Attorney
General's false testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\Markup Tr. (statement of Chairman Bob Goodlatte).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. The Attorney General's recusal from matters related to the 2016
campaign is, at best, incomplete.
H. Res. 184 also requests information related to the
Attorney General's decision to recuse himself from any matter
related to the Trump campaign, as well as the Administration's
analysis of the regulations governing the appointment of
special counsel. This information will help the Committee
assess the particular phrasing of the Attorney General's
recusal, and the extent to which he plans to be involved in
other ongoing investigations of President Trump.
Attorney General Sessions has recused himself ``from any
existing or future investigations of any matters in any way
related to the campaigns for President of the United
States.''\29\ He has ``taken no actions regarding any such
matters,'' and his recusal ``should not be interpreted as
confirmation of the existence of any investigation or
suggestive of the scope of any such investigation.''\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\Attorney General Sessions Statement on Recusal, U.S. Dept. of
Justice, Office of Public Affairs, Mar. 2, 2017.
\30\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal regulations provide that no employee of the
Department of Justice, including the Attorney General:
shall participate in a criminal investigation or
prosecution if he has a personal or political
relationship with:
(1) Any person or organization substantially involved
in the conduct of the investigation or prosecution; or
(2) Any person or organization which he knows a
specific and substantial interest that would be
directly affected by the outcome of the investigation
or prosecution.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\28 C.F.R. Sec. 45.2(a) (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The regulations define ``political relationship'' as ``a
close identification with an elected official . . . arising
from service as a principal adviser thereto or principal
official thereof.''\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\Id. Sec. 45.1(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Sessions clearly has a ``political
relationship'' with President Trump. He therefore should be
disqualified from any investigation or prosecution in which
President Trump is ``substantially involved'' or in which the
President has ``a specific and substantial interest.'' Out of
the many possible investigations of direct interest to
President Trump, it is not clear why the Attorney General chose
to limit his recusal solely to matters ``related to the
campaigns for President of the United States.''
The recusal does not appear to reach matters that pre-date
the campaign. For example, the Department apparently has been
investigating the business dealings of former Trump campaign
manager Paul Manafort long before he became manager of the
Trump campaign.\33\ According to reports, this investigation
centers on Mr. Manafort's work for former Ukrainian President
Viktor Yanukovych.\34\ This matter is not ``related to the
campaigns for President,'' but President Trump has a ``specific
and substantial interest'' in any decision to charge his one-
time campaign manager with a federal crime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\Steven Lee Myers & Andrew E. Kramer, How Paul Manafort Wielded
Power in Ukraine Before Advising Donald Trump, N.Y. Times, July 31,
2016.
\34\Andrew E. Kramer et al., Secret Leger in Ukraine Lists Cash for
Donald Trump's Campaign Chief, N.Y. Times, Aug. 14, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recusal also may not reach events that occurred after
the campaign had ended. Attorney General Sessions concedes that
the scope of his recusal includes ``Russian contacts with the
Trump transition team and administration.''\35\ It is less
clear that his recusal extends to any collateral matters. For
example, the Attorney General is presumably recused from any
investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael
Flynn's discussions with the Russian Ambassador.\36\ But any
investigation into Mr. Flynn's decision to lie about those
discussions--including, possibly, to any federal investigators
who may have interviewed him--is predicated on events that
occurred entirely after ``the campaigns for President'' had
concluded.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\Letter from U.S. Attorney General Jefferson Sessions to Sen.
Charles Grassley, Chairman, S. Comm. on the Judiciary, and Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, Ranking Member, S. Comm. on the Judiciary, Mar. 6, 2017.
\36\See Adam Entous et al., Justice Department warned White House
that Flynn could be vulnerable to Russian blackmail, officials say,
Wash. Post, Feb. 13, 2017.
\37\See Greg Miller et al., National security adviser Flynn
discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador, despite denials, officials
say, Wash. Post, Feb. 9, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recusal certainly does not reach other widely-reported
matters that may be pending at the Department of Justice.
President Trump has potentially unorthodox business
relationships in some of the most corrupt countries in the
world.\38\ Although the President denies having any business
dealings in Russia, he has sought and received funding from
Russian oligarchs, ``especially after most American banks
stopped lending to him following his multiple
bankruptcies.''\39\ He has called the Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act a ``horrible law'' that ``puts us at a huge
disadvantage.''\40\ In Azerbaijan, the President and his family
worked with a notoriously corrupt Minister of Transportation on
a building project that appears to have been a front for Iran's
Revolutionary Guard.\41\ If these cases, or anything like them,
appear before the Department of Justice, Attorney General
Sessions remains the senior official in charge--even though he
has a direct political relationship with the target of the
investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\See Richard C. Paddock et al., Potential Conflicts Around the
Globe for Trump, the Businessman President, N.Y. Times, Nov. 26, 2016.
\39\Max Boot, Trump's Opposition Research Firm: Russia's
Intelligence Agencies, L.A. Times, July 25, 2016.
\40\Trump: Dimon's Woes & Zuckerberg's Prenuptial, CNBC, broadcast
May 15, 2012.
\41\Adam Davidson, Donald Trump's Worst Deal, New Yorker, Mar. 13,
2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the substantial likelihood that President Trump and
his associates have been, and will continue to be, the subject
of investigation by the Department of Justice, one option for
Attorney General Sessions is to appoint a special counsel to
handle the matter. Federal regulations permit the Attorney
General to do so ``when he or she determines that a criminal
investigation is warranted'' and that ``investigation or
prosecution . . . would present a conflict of interest for the
Department.''\42\ H. Res. 184 directs the Attorney General to
transmit his analysis of these regulations to the House--so
that Members can examine what steps he has taken, if any, to
avoid an ongoing conflict of interest. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA)
was one of the first Republicans to suggest that the Attorney
General is ``going to have to use the special prosecutor
statute.''\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\26 C.F.R. Sec. 600.1 (2012).
\43\Melanie Mason, GOP Rep. Darrell Issa tells Bill Maher a special
prosecutor should investigate Russian election interference, L.A.
Times, Feb. 24, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, the Majority has shown little interest in
assessing whether the current scope of the Attorney General's
recusal is appropriate, or whether the appointment of a special
counsel is in order. By voting to report H. Res. 184
unfavorably and block the measure from reaching the House
floor, the Majority has abandoned its responsibility to conduct
oversight of the Department of Justice, and to follow the facts
wherever they may lead us.
III. Attorney General Sessions is one of several associates of
President Trump to have concealed his contacts with the Russian
government.
Although the majority of H. Res. 184 is directed at the
Attorney General's false testimony and his subsequent recusal,
the resolution also requests information about any meeting that
occurred between any employee of President Trump's campaign or
transition team and any representative of the Russian
government.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Ranking Member of the House
Permanent Committee on Intelligence and a leader of that
Committee's investigation into the President's connections to
the Russian government, put the problem succinctly: ``At the
outset of the investigation, there was circumstantial evidence
of collusion. There was direct evidence, I think, of
deception.''\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\Kailani Koenig, Rep. Schiff: ``Circumstantial Evidence of
Collusion'' Between Trump Campaign, Russia, NBC News, Mar. 19, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the markup of H. Res. 184, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA)
also helped to put the Attorney General's false testimony into
context:
[A]s members of the Judiciary Committee, we have an
opportunity right now to do a small piece of this
investigation to understand why, when asked under oath,
the Attorney General misled his Senate confirmation
panel about prior contacts with Russia. And perhaps
just one person in the Administration misleading about
prior contacts with Russia could be excused with an
innocent explanation. I think we are all willing to
accept that. However, when you put this in context you
do not see coincidences; you see a pattern of
deception. . . .
And what this Committee should seek to do is to
understand what does that pattern mean.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\Markup Tr. (statement of Rep. Eric Swalwell).
Attorney General Sessions was just one of the President's
associates to have hidden or lied about his contacts with
Russian officials. H. Res. 184 asks about some of them by name.
On December 29, 2016, the same day that President Obama
imposed sanctions on certain Russian officials in response to
Russian interference in the presidential campaign, former
National Security Advisor Michael Flynn spoke with the Russian
ambassador to the United States about lifting those sanctions
once Donald Trump took office.\46\ In public--and apparently
also in private conversations with Vice President Mike Pence--
Mr. Flynn flatly denied having any such discussions. On
February 9, 2017, the Washington Post reported that Mr. Flynn
had, in fact, discussed lifting sanctions in his conversations
with the Russian ambassador.\47\ Three weeks after the White
House learned of this duplicity, Mr. Flynn resigned.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\Adam Entous et al., Justice Department warned White House that
Flynn could be vulnerable to Russian blackmail, officials say, Wash.
Post, Feb. 13, 2017.
\47\Greg Miller et al., National security adviser Flynn discussed
sanctions with Russian ambassador, despite denials, officials say,
Wash. Post, Feb. 9, 2017.
\48\Maggie Haberman et al., Michael Flynn Resigns as National
Security Adviser, N.Y. Times, Feb. 13, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jared Kushner--President Trump's son-in-law and senior
adviser--participated in a meeting with Ambassador Kislyak in
December.\49\ It may be entirely proper for a senior transition
team official to meet with a foreign leader, but Mr. Flynn's
participation in that meeting was not disclosed until after he
resigned as National Security Adviser.\50\ The Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence recently asked to question Mr.
Kushner about a number of other previously undisclosed meetings
with Russian officials. At least one such meeting included a
conversation with the head of a Russian bank that has been
subject to U.S. sanctions since Russia's invasion of Crimea and
Ukraine.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\Evan Osnos et al., Trump, Putin, and the New Cold War, New
Yorker, Feb. 26, 2017.
\50\Michael S. Schmidt, Kushner and Flynn Met With Russian Envoy in
December, White House Says, N.Y. Times, Mar. 2, 2017.
\51\Jo Becker et al., Senate Committee to Question Jared Kushner
Over Meetings With Russians, N.Y. Times, Mar. 27, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to reports, the FBI has questioned Carter Page, a
foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign, for his frequent
trips to Moscow and alleged contacts with Russian officials
subject to U.S. sanctions.\52\ In an interview on February 15,
2017, Mr. Page claimed that he had participated in ``no
meetings'' with Russian officials in the past year.\53\ On
March 2, 2017, USA Today reported that both Mr. Page and J.D.
Gordon, director of the national security advisory committee
for the Trump campaign, met with the Russian ambassador at the
Republican National Convention in July 2016.\54\ Mr. Page
admitted his earlier misstatement in an interview broadcast
later that evening.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\Michael Isikoff, U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump
advisor and Kremlin, Yahoo! News, Sept. 24, 2016.
\53\Former Trump adviser says he had no Russian meetings in the
past year, PBS News Hour, Feb. 15, 2017.
\54\Steve Reilly, Exclusive: Two other Trump advisers also spoke
with Russian envoy during GOP convention, USA Today, Mar. 2, 2017.
\55\``I am not going to deny that I talked to him. I will say I
never met him anywhere outside of Cleveland.'' All in with Chris Hayes,
MSNBC, broadcast Mar. 2, 2017 (interview with Carter Page).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Burt, a former U.S. Ambassador to Germany and a
lobbyist for interests controlled by the Russian government,
helped to write President Trump's first foreign policy speech
even as he was earning hundreds of thousands of dollars to
build a gas pipeline for Russian gas giant Gazprom.\56\ As the
chairman of the Trump campaign's national security advisory
committee, then-Senator Jeff Sessions invited Mr. Burt ``to
discuss issues of national security and foreign policy, and
wrote white papers for Sessions on the same subjects.''\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\Ben Schreckinger & Julia Ioffe, Lobbyist advised Trump campaign
while promoting Russian pipeline, Politico, Oct. 7, 2016.
\57\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort once worked as
a pro-Kremlin political consultant in Ukraine.\58\ He
reportedly oversaw the softening of the Republican National
Committee's platform on Russia.\59\ While working for the Trump
campaign, he appears to have been the target of a blackmail
attempt by a Ukrainian politician--who claimed to have
``bulletproof'' evidence related to certain financial
arrangements between Mr. Manafort and Ukraine's former
president, pro-Russian strongman Viktor Yanukovych.\60\ The FBI
has been investigating his business dealings in Russia and
Ukraine for some time.\61\ Other recent reporting has raised
questions about Mr. Manafort's use of shell corporations to
purchase real estate in New York City,\62\ money laundering
through Cypriot banks,\63\ and a secret deal with one Russian
oligarch to influence politics in the United States to
``greatly benefit the Putin government.''\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\Amber Philips, Paul Manafort's complicated ties to Ukraine,
explained, Wash. Post, Aug. 19, 2016.
\59\Josh Rogin, Trump campaign guts GOP's anti-Russia stance on
Ukraine, Wash. Post, July 18, 2016.
\60\Kenneth P. Vogel et al., Manafort faced blackmail attempt,
hacks suggest, Politico, Feb. 23, 2016.
\61\Ken Dilanian et al., FBI Making Inquiry into Ex-Trump Campaign
Manager's Foreign Ties, NBC News, Nov. 1, 2016.
\62\Ilya Marritz & Andrea Bernstein, Paul Manafort's Puzzling New
York Real Estate Purchases, WNYC News, Mar. 28, 2017.
\63\Aggelos Petropoulos & Richard Engel, Manafort-Linked Accounts
on Cyprus Raised Red Flag, NBC News, Mar. 29, 2017.
\64\Jeff Horwitz & Chad Day, AP Exclusive: Before Trump job,
Manafort worked to aid Putin, Assoc. Press, Mar. 22, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trump campaign advisor Roger Stone has been swept into
similar investigations.\65\ During the campaign, he bragged
about ``back-channel'' communications with WikiLeaks and
appeared to know that WikiLeaks would publish emails from
Clinton Campaign chairman John Podesta--emails exfiltrated from
the Democratic National Committee by Russian state actors--
months before those emails became public.\66\ On March 4, 2017,
Mr. Stone again claimed a ``perfectly legal back channel'' to
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange--and then deleted the
statement from Twitter.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\Michael S. Schmidt, Intercepted Russian Communications Part of
Inquiry into Trump Associates, N.Y. Times, Jan. 29, 2017.
\66\Alexa Ard, Donald Trump ally Roger Stone admits ``back-
channel'' tie to WikiLeaks, McClatchy, Oct. 12, 2016.
\67\Marina Fang, Former Trump Advisor Roger Stone Admits Collusion
with WikiLeaks, Then Deletes It, Huffington Post, Mar. 5, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael D. Cohen, President Trump's private attorney, is
working to bring ``peace'' to Ukraine through a Ukrainian
lawmaker associated with Paul Manafort.\68\ The peace plan,
which Mr. Cohen reportedly hand-delivered to Mr. Flynn in the
days before his resignation, appears to turn on lifting
sanctions on the Russian government and recognizing Crimea as
part of Russia--both to the obvious gain of Vladimir Putin.\69\
Mr. Cohen has denied making a separate trip to the Czech
Republic during the campaign to meet with Russian
officials.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\Megan Twohey and Scott Shane, A Back-Channel Plan for Ukraine
and Russia, Courtesy of Trump Associates, N.Y. Times, Feb. 19, 2017.
\69\Julia Ioffe, The Mystery of the Ukraine Peace Plan, The
Atlantic, Feb. 20, 2017.
\70\Hunter Walker, Trump attorney Michael Cohen: I have no Russian
Kremlin connections, Yahoo! News, Jan. 11, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, there remain unanswered questions about the
Attorney General's direct contacts with the Russian government.
At his confirmation hearings, he testified: ``I did not have
communications with the Russians.''\71\ That testimony was, at
best, inaccurate. Steven Hall, a former head of Russia
operations at the Central Intelligence Agency, notes that the
Russian government would have incentive to cultivate a
relationship with Senator Sessions, because of his role on key
Senate committees and as an early adviser to the President.
``The fact that he had already placed himself at least
ideologically behind Trump would have been an added bonus for
Kislyak.''\72\ Michael McFaul, former U.S. ambassador to
Russia, did not find it unusual for the Attorney General to
have met with Ambassador Kislyak. ``The weird part is to
conceal it. That was at the height of all the discussions of
what Russia was doing during the election.''\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\Attorney General Nomination, hearing before the S. Comm. on the
Judiciary, Jan. 10, 2017 (exchange between Sen. Al Franken and Sen.
Jeff Sessions).
\72\Adam Entous, et al., Sessions met with Russian envoy twice last
year, encounters he later did not disclose, Wash. Post, Mar. 1, 2017.
\73\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each of the Trump campaign officials named in H. Res. 184
appears to have had contact with the Russian government. Many
of these officials served as national security advisors to the
campaign--and Attorney General Sessions served the campaign as
chair of its national security advisory committee. Whether or
not he engaged in any wrongdoing, the Attorney General sat in
the center of a group of individuals who met with Russian
officials and then attempted to obscure those meetings.
The Committee has an obligation to investigate this pattern
of behavior. In particular, we have an obligation to
investigate how that pattern may implicate the sitting Attorney
General of the United States. By voting to report H. Res. 184
unfavorably and block it from consideration by the full House,
the Majority chooses to ignore that obligation.
CONCLUSION
At the markup of H. Res. 184, Rep. Jeffries raised a key
question about an unexplained shift in the Attorney General's
outlook:
Before hooking up with Donald Trump, then-Senator
Sessions was quite clear on the systematic fraud and
corruption in Putin's Russia. But something changed
after joining the Trump team. And in March of last
year, days after his official endorsement of Donald
Trump, he said, ``I think an argument can be made that
there is no reason for the U.S. and Russia to be at
this loggerheads. We ought to be able to break that
logjam.''
Why did Jeff Sessions suddenly forget that Putin's
brutal and corrupt regime undermines America's
democratic values? The American people deserve to
know.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\Markup Tr. (statement of Rep. Hakeem Jeffries).
By itself, there is nothing untoward about a shift in a
sitting Senator's foreign policy. In isolation and after a good
faith attempt at correction, a case of mistaken testimony
before a congressional committee would be little cause for
concern. Taken all together, however, the evidence suggests
that the Attorney General and his associates from the Trump
campaign have engaged in a pattern of behavior that raises too
many questions to ignore.
We are disappointed, but not surprised, that the Majority
refuses to ask these critical questions of the Department of
Justice and the White House. We will continue to press the
Trump Administration for answers, with or without the Majority.
Accordingly, we strongly support H. Res. 184 and
respectfully dissent from the Majority's motion to report it
unfavorably.
Mr. Conyers, Jr.
Mr. Nadler.
Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Jackson Lee.
Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Johnson, Jr.
Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Gutierrez.
Ms. Bass.
Mr. Richmond.
Mr. Jeffries.
Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Swalwell.
Mr. Lieu.
Ms. Jayapal.
Mr. Raskin.
[all]