[House Report 115-83]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
115th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 115-83
======================================================================
RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY REQUESTING THE PRESIDENT, AND DIRECTING THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, TO TRANSMIT, RESPECTIVELY, CERTAIN DOCUMENTS TO THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RELATING TO CERTAIN COMMUNICATIONS BY THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
_______
April 6, 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. 203]
[Including Committee Cost Estimate]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
resolution (H. Res. 203) of inquiry requesting the President,
and directing the Attorney General, to transmit, respectively,
certain documents to the House of Representatives relating to
certain communications by the President of the United States,
having considered the same, reports favorably 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......................................................... 4
Committee Consideration.......................................... 4
Committee Votes.................................................. 4
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 6
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 6
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 6
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 7
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 the 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 possessions, or any portion of any such communication, that
refers or relates to the following:
(1) President Donald J. Trump's statement, communicated via
Twitter on March 4, 2017, at 3:35 a.m.: ``Terrible! Just found
out that Obama had my `wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before
the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!'';
(2) President Trump's statement, communicated via Twitter on
March 4, 2017, at 3:49 a.m.: ``Is it legal for a sitting
President to be `wire tapping' a race for president prior to an
election?' Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!'';
(3) President Trump's statement, communicated via Twitter on
March 4, 2017, at 3:52 a.m.: ``I'd bet a good lawyer could make
a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping
my phones in October, just prior to Election!''; or
(4) President Trump's statement, communicated via Twitter on
March 4, 2017, at 4:02 a.m.: ``How low has President Obama gone
to tapp [sic] my phones during the very sacred election
process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!''.
Purpose and Summary
House Resolution 203 is a non-binding resolution of inquiry
that requests that the Trump administration provide the House
of Representatives with documents related to certain
communications by the President regarding surveillance at Trump
Tower.
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 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 203 requests information related to
statements communicated via Twitter by the President with
regard to the alleged surveillance of individuals at Trump
Tower. As with the two other resolutions of inquiry that the
Committee has considered this Congress, this resolution in no
way compels the production of information. Moreover, as with
the previous resolutions, this resolution comes on top of
already existing investigations into the matter by both the
House and Senate Intelligence Committees.
This resolution is unnecessary and premature given that
committees in both the House and Senate are already
investigating and have the full authority to compel the
production of any needed documents that are not already being
provided to Congress by the administration and the intelligence
community. The House does not need to insert a non-binding
resolution of inquiry into the middle of at least two ongoing
investigations into this matter.
Furthermore, given that the information sought in this
resolution is almost certainly classified, the overly broad
request contained in the resolution would appear to be
inappropriate. The resolution requests ``any document, record,
memo, correspondence, or other communication . . . or any
portion of any such communication, that refers or relates to
[the President's tweets regarding Trump Tower being
wiretapped].'' The only limit placed on this request is that
the communications be in the possession of the President or the
Attorney General. It is questionable whether such a fishing
expedition would be appropriate under normal circumstances, but
given that the documents sought here are likely classified and
that the two Intelligence Committees are already investigating
this matter, this broad and unspecific request seems wholly
inappropriate. This would especially seem to be the case given
the apparent mishandling of classified information that
surrounds the materials sought by this and the other
resolutions of inquiry that have been before the Committee this
Congress.
As the Committee has stated with regard to this and the
other resolutions of inquiry it has considered this Congress
and made clear in its oversight plan, the Committee is
committed to conducting robust oversight of the Executive
Branch. However, in conducting any such oversight, the
Committee will act in an objective manner using the more
precise and powerful tools it possesses and not through
politicized resolutions of inquiry. Accordingly, the Committee
voted to report this resolution unfavorably to the House.
Hearings
The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H. Res.
203.
Committee Consideration
On March 29, 2017, the Committee met in open session and
ordered House Resolution 203 unfavorably reported, with an
amendment, by a roll call vote of 19 to 15, 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. Amendment #1, offered by Mr. Raskin, to expand the scope
of the resolution to include documents related to the Chairman
of the House Intelligence Committee's White House meeting and
announcement regarding the incidental collection of information
about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition. The
amendment was defeated by a roll call vote of 11 to 18.
ROLLCALL NO. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI).................... X
Mr. Smith (TX).................................
Mr. Chabot (OH)................................ X
Mr. Issa (CA).................................. X
Mr. King (IA).................................. X
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)............................ X
Mr. Collins (GA)............................... X
Mr. DeSantis (FL).............................. X
Mr. Buck (CO).................................. X
Mr. Ratcliffe (TX).............................
Ms. Roby (AL).................................. X
Mr. Gaetz (FL).................................
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)........................... X
Mr. Cohen (TN).................................
Mr. Johnson (GA)............................... X
Mr. Deutch (FL)................................ X
Mr. Gutierrez (IL).............................
Ms. Bass (CA).................................. X
Mr. Richmond (LA)..............................
Mr. Jeffries (NY).............................. X
Mr. Cicilline (RI)............................. X
Mr. Swalwell (CA)..............................
Mr. Lieu (CA).................................. X
Mr. Raskin (MD)................................ X
Ms. Jayapal (WA)...............................
Mr. Schneider (IL)............................. X
------------------------
Total...................................... 11 18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Motion to report H. Res. 203 unfavorably to the House.
Approved 19 to 15.
ROLLCALL NO. 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI).................... X
Mr. Smith (TX).................................
Mr. Chabot (OH)................................ X
Mr. Issa (CA).................................. X
Mr. King (IA).................................. X
Mr. Franks (AZ)................................ X
Mr. Gohmert (TX)............................... X
Mr. Jordan (OH)................................ X
Mr. Poe (TX)................................... X
Mr. Chaffetz (UT).............................. X
Mr. Marino (PA)................................
Mr. Gowdy (SC)................................. X
Mr. Labrador (ID).............................. X
Mr. Farenthold (TX)............................ X
Mr. Collins (GA)............................... X
Mr. DeSantis (FL).............................. X
Mr. Buck (CO).................................. X
Mr. Ratcliffe (TX).............................
Ms. Roby (AL).................................. X
Mr. Gaetz (FL).................................
Mr. Johnson (LA)............................... X
Mr. Biggs (AZ)................................. X
Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member.......... X
Mr. Nadler (NY)................................ X
Ms. Lofgren (CA)............................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee (TX)........................... X
Mr. Cohen (TN)................................. X
Mr. Johnson (GA)............................... X
Mr. Deutch (FL)................................ X
Mr. Gutierrez (IL).............................
Ms. Bass (CA).................................. X
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...................................... 19 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 203 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. 203 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.
203 requests certain documents from the Trump administration
related to communications by the President of the United States
regarding surveillance at Trump Tower.
Advisory on Earmarks
In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, H. Res. 203 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.
House Resolution 203, 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 by the
President regarding surveillance at Trump Tower.
Dissenting Views
On March 4, 2017, President Donald J. Trump claimed via
Twitter that ``President Obama was tapping my phones in
October, just prior to Election!''\1\ He directed the statement
at President Obama personally: ``How low has President Obama
gone to tapp [sic] my phones during the very sacred election
process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\President Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter, Mar. 4,
2017, 3:52 AM.
\2\President Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter, Mar. 4,
2017, 4:02 AM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no evidence to support this claim.
The accusation has been denied by former President Obama;
former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper; Speaker
Paul Ryan (R-WI); Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), Chairman of the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence; and Representative
Devin Nunes (R-CA), Chairman of the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence.\3\ In recent testimony, Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey said there
is ``no information'' to back the President's charge.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Peter Baker & Charlie Savage, Trump Digs In on Wiretap, No
Matter Who Says Differently, N.Y. Times, Mar. 16, 2017.
\4\Russian Active Measures Investigation: Open Hearing before the
H. Permanent Sel. Comm. on Intelligence, 115th Cong. (2017) (remarks of
Director James B. Comey, Federal Bureau of Investigation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevertheless, the White House stands by the President's
claim.\5\ The Administration's reckless defense of the
President's ``wiretap'' accusation has, in a few short weeks,
further undermined the credibility of the Administration,
undercut relationships with one of our closest allies, and
diminished the standing of the House of Representatives. Our
Committee has primary jurisdiction over the statutes that
authorize government surveillance. If there is proof to support
the President's claim, it should fall to the House Committee on
the Judiciary to find it. If there is none--and there almost
certainly is none--it falls to our Members to correct an
Administration that seems oblivious to the harm it has caused.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Office of the Press Secretary, Press Briefing by Press
Secretary Sean Spicer, 3/16/2017, #25, The White House, Mar. 16, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Mike Quigley (D-IL) introduced H. Res. 203
on March 16, 2017. The Resolution directs the White House and
the Department of Justice to provide the House with information
related to the President's allegation. Rather than support the
Resolution and put the burden on the Administration to explain
its actions, the Majority chose to adversely report it and
block it from further consideration in the House.
DESCRIPTION OF THE LEGISLATION
H. Res. 203 directs President Trump and U.S. Attorney
General Jeff Sessions to transmit to the House, not later than
14 days after 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) President Trump's statement, communicated via Twitter
on March 4, 2017, at 3:35 AM: ``Terrible! Just found out that
Obama had my `wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the
victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism.''
(2) President Trump's statement, communicated via Twitter
on March 4, 2017, at 3:49 AM: ``Is it legal for a sitting
President to be `wire tapping' [sic] a race for president prior
to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!''
(3) President Trump's statement, communicated via Twitter
on March 4, 2017, at 3:52 AM: ``I'd bet a good lawyer could
make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was
tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!''
(4) President Trump's statement, communicated via Twitter
on March 4, 2017, at 4:02 AM: ``How low has President Obama
gone to tapp [sic] my phones during the very sacred election
process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!''
H. Res. 203 expressly permits the White House and the
Department of Justice to transmit this information in a
classified format if necessary.
GENERAL BACKGROUND
Under the rules and precedents of the House, a resolution
of inquiry is used to obtain information from the executive
branch. Directed at the President of the United States or the
head of a Cabinet-level agency, a resolution of inquiry
requests 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 A note 6, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
REASONS WHY H. RES. 203 IS NEEDED
H. Res. 203 gives the Committee an opportunity to hold
President Trump accountable for his ``wiretapping'' claim.
Unless the burden is placed on the President to produce
evidence to support his accusation, it seems unlikely that the
White House will acknowledge the increasingly obvious truth:
President Trump's claim is simply false.
I. President Trump has a history of making obviously false statements
As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump displayed a
remarkable proclivity for false and misleading statements.\10\
That behavior has continued into his presidency. According to
one report, since President Trump has been in office, he has
made 338 false or misleading claims.\11\ At the time of this
writing, out of the 76 days President Trump has occupied the
White House, there have been only three days so far without his
making a false statement on record.\12\ Some of these claims
stand out--both as odd preoccupations for a sitting president,
and as comments that diverge from easily confirmed facts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\The 2016 Election Fact Checker, Wash. Post, Nov. 3, 2016.; see,
e.g., Michell Ye Hee Lee, Trump's false claim that the murder rate is
the ``highest it's been in 45 years,'' Wash. Post, Nov. 3, 2016;
Michell Ye Hee Lee, Fact-checking two false claims by Trump alleging
widespread voter fraud, Wash. Post, Oct. 19, 2016; Glenn Kessler,
Trump's claim that a racial discrimination suit was ``brought against
many real estate firms,'' Wash. Post, Sept. 28, 2016; Glenn Kessler,
Too good to check: Sean Hannity's tale of a Trump rescue, Wash. Post,
Aug. 11, 2016.
\11\100 Days of Trump Claims, Wash. Post, Feb. 21, 2017 (last
visited Apr. 5, 2017).
\12\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 21, 2017, in a speech delivered before the CIA
Memorial Wall, President Trump claimed that ``a million,
million and a half people'' had attended his inauguration the
day before.\13\ As to reports of substantially smaller crowds,
he said: ``The rest of the 20-block area, all the way back to
the Washington Monument, was packed. So we caught them, and we
caught them in a beauty. And I think they are going to pay a
big price.''\14\ Later that evening, White House Press
Secretary Sean Spicer argued that the media had deliberately
misled the public. ``This was the largest audience to ever
witness an inauguration--period.''\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\Office of the Press Secretary, Remarks by President Trump and
Vice President Pence at CIA Headquarters, The White House, Jan. 21,
2017.
\14\Id.
\15\Office of the Press Secretary, Statement by Press Secretary
Sean Spicer, The White House, Jan. 21, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each of the President's arguments in support of this claim
was quickly debunked. Mr. Spicer argued that ``[t]his was the
first time in our nation's history that floor coverings have
been used to protect the grass on the Mall. That had the effect
of highlighting any areas where people were not standing.''\16\
Floor coverings have been in use since 2013.\17\ Mr. Spicer
claimed that ``[t]his was also the first time that fencing and
magnetometers went as far back on the Mall, preventing hundreds
of thousands of people from being able to access the
Mall.''\18\ According to the Congressional Research Service,
fencing and magnetometers have been a standard part of
inauguration security since 2009.\19\ Mr. Spicer claimed that
ridership on local public transportation had outpaced President
Obama's second inauguration, an assertion that was quickly
disputed by the Washington Metro Area Transportation
Authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\Id.
\17\Plan to Protect National Mall Grass This Inauguration, NBC
Washington, Jan. 17, 2013.
\18\Office of the Press Secretary, Statement by Press Secretary
Sean Spicer, The White House, Jan. 21, 2017.
\19\Inauguration Security: Operations, Appropriations, and Issues
for Congress, Cong. Research Service, R42867, Jan. 11, 2017.
\20\Luz Lazo, Metro Inauguration Day trips top 500,000, but still
lowest since 2005, Wash. Post, Jan. 21, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although it can be difficult to estimate crowd sizes on the
National Mall, side-by-side images of the 2017 and 2009
inauguration ceremonies show significantly larger crowds at
President Obama's first inauguration.\21\ On March 7, 2017, the
National Park Service released aerial photographs that appear
to confirm this comparison.\22\ Even if the President were
correct, and 1.5 million people attended his inauguration--even
if Mr. Spicer's lower estimate was accurate, and 720,000 people
filled the space between the Capitol and the Washington
Monument--those figures would be smaller than the 1.8 million
people estimated to have attended President Obama's first
inaugural.\23\ One wonders why the White House made this claim
in the first place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\Betsy Klein, Comparing Donald Trump and Barack Obama's
inaugural crowd sizes, CNN, Jan. 21, 2017.
\22\Katie Reilly, Official NPS Photos Show President Trump's
Inauguration Was Smaller Than Obama's, Time, Mar. 7, 2017.
\23\Linda Qiu, Donald Trump had biggest inaugural crowd ever?
Metrics don't show it, Politifact, Jan. 21, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Trump received 304 votes in the electoral
college. In 2012, President Obama received 332 electoral votes.
In 2008, President Obama won with 365 electoral votes.
Presented with this information at a recent press conference,
President Trump suggested, ``[w]ell, I'm talking about
Republican.''\24\ When told that President George H. W. Bush
won in 1988 with 426 electoral votes, President Trump demurred:
``[w]ell, no, I was told--I was given that information. I don't
know. I was just given. We had a very, very big margin.''\25\
The President declined to answer a follow-up question: ``why
should Americans trust you . . . when you're providing
information that's fake?''\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\Office of the Press Secretary, Remarks by President Trump in
Press Conference, The White House, Feb. 16, 2017.
\25\Id.
\26\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since taking office, President Trump has also repeated the
claim he would have won the popular vote but for millions of
illegal votes.\27\ In the days after the election, President
Trump stated: ``In addition to winning the Electoral College in
a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions
of people who voted illegally.''\28\ In a televised interview,
he suggested that, out of the three to five million illegal
votes cast, ``none of `em come to me. None of `em come to me.
They would all be for the other side.''\29\ There is no
evidence to support the claim that millions of people voted
illegally in the recent election--let alone that each of those
millions of votes were cast for Secretary Hillary Clinton.\30\
Several senior Republicans--including Senators John McCain (R-
AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC)--have urged the President to stop
repeating the baseless theory.\31\ Nevertheless, according to
the White House, the President ``believes what he
believes.''\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\Abby Phillip & Mike DeBonis, Without evidence, Trump tells
lawmakers 3 million to 5 million illegal ballots cost him the popular
vote, Wash. Post, Jan. 23, 2017.
\28\President Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter, Nov. 27,
2016, 3:30 PM.
\29\Transcript: ABC News anchor David Muir interviews president
Trump, ABC News, Jan. 25, 2017.
\30\Glenn Kessler, Donald Trump's bogus claim that millions of
people voted illegally for Hillary Clinton, Wash. Post, Nov. 27, 2016;
Knock the Vote: Zero evidence has been put forth to support the widely
parroted claim that 3 million ``illegal aliens'' voted in the 2016
presidential election, Snopes.com, Nov. 23, 2016; Allison Graves, Fact-
check: Did 3 million undocumented immigrants vote in this year's
election?, Politifact, Nov. 18, 2016.
\31\Frank Thorp & Corky Siemaszko, Lindsey Graham to Trump: Stop
Claiming ``Illegals'' Cost You Popular Vote, NBC News, Jan. 24, 2017.
\32\David Jackson, Spicer: Trump believes voter fraud claim despite
lack of evidence, USA Today, Jan. 24, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After repeated debunking, these claims merely undermine the
credibility of the Trump Administration. Other claims--like the
President's ``wiretapping'' accusation--have the potential to
do real and lasting damage to our national security.
II. President Trump has offered no evidence to support his
``wiretapping'' claim--but his reckless defense keeps changing
President Trump has offered no evidence to substantiate his
claim that President Obama orchestrated a ``Nixon/Watergate''
plot to conduct unlawful surveillance on Trump Tower prior to
the election--but the manner in which the White House defends
that claim has changed dramatically over a short period of
time.
The President made his wiretapping accusation early in the
morning of March 4, 2017. On March 5, White House Press
Secretary Sean Spicer issued a statement: ``Reports concerning
potentially politically motivated investigations immediately
ahead of the 2016 election are very troubling.''\33\ Mr. Spicer
said that the President had requested an investigation into the
matter by the congressional intelligence committees, and that
``[n]either the White House nor the President will comment
further until such oversight is conducted.''\34\ On March 8,
Mr. Spicer broke from his ``no comment'' statement to clarify
that, although Trump Tower may have been the target of
surveillance, ``there is no reason . . . that we have to think
the President is the target of any investigation.''\35\ On
March 9, Mr. Spicer backtracked, stating that although the
White House was ``not aware'' of any investigation into the
President, he did not know if one existed.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\Office of the Press Secretary, Statement from the Press
Secretary, The White House, Mar. 5, 2017.
\34\Id.
\35\Office of the Press Secretary, Press Briefing by Press
Secretary Sean Spicer, The White House, Mar. 8, 2017.
\36\Office of the Press Secretary, Press Briefing by Press
Secretary Sean Spicer, The White House, Mar. 9, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 13, Mr. Spicer attempted to broaden the meaning of
the President's initial statement: ``I think if you look at the
President's tweet, he said very clearly `wiretapping' in
quotes'' and ``that spans a whole host of surveillance types of
options.''\37\ On March 14, Mr. Spicer stretched the original
claim even further. Not only did the President use the word
wiretap ``in quotes,'' but there has been ``significant
reporting about surveillance techniques that have existed
throughout the 2016 election.''\38\ On the evening of March 15,
in a televised interview, President Trump was asked why he did
not wait until he had evidence of wiretapping at Trump Tower
before making a public statement. The President responded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\Office of the Press Secretary, Press Briefing by Press
Secretary Sean Spicer, The White House, Mar. 13, 2017.
\38\Office of the Press Secretary, Press Briefing by Press
Secretary Sean Spicer, The White House, Mar. 14, 2017.
[I]f you take a look at some of the things written
about wiretapping and eavesdropping . . . and don't
forget I say wiretapping, those words were in quotes.
That really covers--because wiretapping is pretty old-
fashioned stuff--but that really covers surveillance
and many other things. And nobody ever talks about the
fact that it was in quotes, but that's a very important
thing. But wiretap covers a lot of different things. I
think you're going to find some very interesting items
coming to the forefront over the next two weeks.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\Tucker Carlson Tonight, Fox News, broadcast Mar. 15, 2017
(interview with President Donald Trump).
At a March 16 press briefing, Mr. Spicer spent several
minutes reading from a list of press clips--some from
conservative pundits, others from articles about government
surveillance wholly unrelated to the President's claim.\40\ ``I
think the President's been very clear when he talks about this,
and he talked about it last night. So we talked about
wiretapping, he meant surveillance and that there have been
incidents that have occurred.''\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\Office of the Press Secretary, Press Briefing by Press
Secretary Sean Spicer, The White House, Mar. 16, 2017.
\41\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 31, Mr. Spicer tried a new approach. Citing to Dr.
Evelyn Farkas, a foreign policy expert who left the Obama
Administration in 2015, Mr. Spicer circled back to something
like the President's original thesis: he claimed that Dr.
Farkas had ``raised serious concerns on whether or not there
was an organized and widespread effort by the Obama
administration to use and leak highly sensitive intelligence
information for political purposes.''\42\ In fact, Dr. Farkas
had raised serious concerns about the Trump Administration
burying evidence related to the Russian government and the
Trump campaign. She stated, ``I had a fear that somehow that
information would disappear with the senior people who left so
it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy.''\43\ In context,
Dr. Farkas was responding to a report that the Obama White
House had ``scrambled to spread information about Russian
efforts to undermine the presidential election . . . to ensure
that such meddling isn't duplicated in future American or
European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence
for government investigators.''\44\ Given the Trump
Administration's Russia-related antics, the concerns expressed
by Dr. Farkas seem well-placed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\Office of the Press Secretary, Press Briefing by Press
Secretary Sean Spicer, The White House, Mar. 31, 2017.
\43\Morning Joe, MSNBC, broadcast Mar. 2, 2017 (comments of Dr.
Evelyn Farkas).
\44\Matthew Rosenberg et al., Obama Administration Rushed to
Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking, N.Y. Times, Mar. 1,
2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The President's initial accusation remains on the record:
``I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact
that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just
prior to Election!''\45\ His characterization of that claim has
shifted--from the certainty of a ``Nixon/Watergate'' operation
ordered by his predecessor to mere ``[r]eports concerning
potentially politically motivated investigations.'' His
Administration has gone from ``reviewing'' a serious legal
matter to litigating the importance of the quotation marks
around the word ``wiretap.'' Absent any actual proof, the White
House has attempted to appropriate a slew of opinion pieces and
unrelated reporting as evidence that some kind of surveillance
happened, even if the President's literal accusation is untrue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\President Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter, Mar. 4,
2017, 3:52 AM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a simpler explanation for the President's
unfounded claim. During the markup of H. Res. 203,
Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA) observed:
the President of the United States made a very serious
allegation that Trump Tower was wiretapped. If that
were true . . . it would mean that U.S. intelligence
officials or U.S. agents investigating criminal
behavior believe there were either agents of a foreign
power at Trump Tower or a criminal activity. And that
they convinced a Federal judge of that, either an
independent FISA Court judge appointed by Chief Justice
Roberts or a Federal District Court judge, all with
life tenures, who concluded, ``Yes, there was probable
cause that there was criminal activity at Trump Tower
or there were agents of a foreign power.''\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\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. Ted Lieu) [hereinafter Markup Tr.].
Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) asked Representative Lieu to
yield, and insisted that ``[t]his question has already been
answered. We know this because Director Comey testified before
the House Intelligence Committee last week.''\47\
Representative Lieu responded: ``Thank you, Mr. Chair, because
that gets me to the second part of my statement which is, `Or
the President of the United States just made this up.'''\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\Id. (statement of Chairman Bob Goodlatte).
\48\Id. (statement of Rep. Ted Lieu).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 203 would cut through the Administration's
deflection. The resolution directs the White House to produce
what evidence it may have to support the President's statement.
If, as President Trump suggests, ``we have a lot'' of evidence
``right now,''\49\ then the resolution would have given him an
opportunity to be vindicated. If not, then H. Res. 203 would at
least put the shifting storyline to rest. The Majority chose
instead to block the resolution, and to enable the President to
continue pressing his baseless claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\Tucker Carlson Tonight, FOX News, broadcast Mar. 15, 2017
(interview with President Donald Trump).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. President Trump's statements have been widely dismissed as untrue
There is bipartisan consensus in Congress that the
President's ``wiretap'' claim is unfounded. Speaker Paul Ryan
(R-WI) said ``we've seen no evidence of that.''\50\
Representative Devin Nunes (R-CA), Chairman of the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said that there was
not ``an actual tap of Trump Tower. Are you going to take the
tweets literally? If you are, then clearly the President was
wrong.''\51\ In a joint statement, Senators Richard Burr (R-NC)
and Mark Warner (D-VA), the Chairman and Ranking Member of the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said: ``Based on the
information available to us, we see no indications that Trump
Tower was the subject of surveillance by any element of the
United States government either before or after Election Day
2016.''\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\Austin Wright, Congress' wiretap slap leaves White House
fuming, Politico, Mar. 16, 2017.
\51\Id.
\52\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In his recent testimony before the intelligence committee,
FBI Director James Comey made the matter clear in an exchange
with Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA):
Schiff. Director Comey, was the president's statement
that Obama had his wires tapped in Trump Tower a true
statement?
Comey. With respect to the president's tweet about
alleged wiretapping directed at him by the prior
administration, I have no information that supports
those tweets and we have looked carefully inside the
FBI. The Department of Justice has asked me to share
with you that the answer is the same for the Department
of Justice and all its components. The department has
no information that supports those tweets. . . .
Schiff. So President Obama could not unilaterally order
a wiretap of anyone?
Comey. No president could.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\Russian Active Measures Investigation: Open Hearing before the
H. Permanent Sel. Comm. on Intelligence, 115th Cong. (2017) (remarks of
Director James B. Comey, Federal Bureau of Investigation).
In an odd reflection of the larger incident, during
Director Comey's testimony, President Trump claimed from his
official Twitter account that Director Comey and National
Security Agency Director Mike Rogers had told the committee
that ``Russia did not influence electoral process.''\54\ Later
in the hearing, Representative Jim Himes (D-CT) asked Director
Comey about the President's characterization. Director Comey
said ``it wasn't our intention to say that today'' and referred
back to his earlier testimony that Russia had ``engaged in a
multifaceted campaign of active measures to undermine our
democracy and hurt one of the candidates--and hope to help one
of the other candidates.''\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\President Trump (@POTUS), Twitter, Mar. 20, 2017, 9:42AM.
\55\Russian Active Measures Investigation: Open Hearing before the
H. Permanent Sel. Comm. on Intelligence, 115th Cong. (2017) (remarks of
Director James B. Comey, Federal Bureau of Investigation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. The Administration's defense of the President's claim presents a
risk to national security
The fact that the President is caught without evidence for
his wiretapping claim does not mean that his actions cannot
cause real and lasting damage to the United States. In a
rambling defense of the President's wiretapping claim, White
House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told the White House Press
pool:
Last, on Fox News, on March 14th, Judge Andrew
Napolitano made the following statement, quote, ``three
intelligence sources have informed Fox News that
President Obama went outside the chain of command. He
didn't use the NSA, he didn't' use the CIA, he didn't
use the FBI, and he didn't use the Department of
Justice. He used GCHQ. What is that? It's the initials
for the British intelligence finding agency.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\Office of the Press Secretary, Press Briefing by Press
Secretary Sean Spicer, The White House, Mar. 16, 2017.
The White House continues to avoid responsibility from the
fallout for these remarks.
Breaking from its policy of refusing to comment about its
activities, a spokesman for United Kingdom Government
Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) said: ``Recent allegations
made by media commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano about GCHQ
being asked to conduct `wiretapping' against the then president
elect are nonsense. They are utterly ridiculous and should be
ignored.''\57\ Tim Farron, leader of the Liberal Democrat party
in the United Kingdom, stated: ``Trump is compromising the
vital UK-US security relationship to try to cover his own
embarrassment. This harms our and US security.''\58\ Susan
Rice, National Security Advisor for President Obama, argued:
``The cost of falsely blaming our closest ally for something
this consequential cannot be overstated.''\59\ Prime Minister
Teresa May of Britain also issued a statement: ``We've made
clear to the administration that these claims are ridiculous
and should be ignored. We've received assurances these
allegations won't be repeated.''\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\Barney Henderson, GCHQ slaps down White House claims of Trump
Tower wiretapping claims as ``utterly ridiculous,'' Telegraph, Mar. 17,
2017.
\58\Id.
\59\Id.
\60\Peter Baker & Steven Erlanger, Trump Offers No Apology for
Claim on British Spying, N.Y. Times, Mar. 17, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next day, at a press conference with German Chancellor
Angela Merkel, President Trump was unwilling to take
responsibility for the backlash: ``All we did was quote a
certain very talented legal mind who was the one responsible
for saying that on television. You shouldn't be talking to me,
you should be talking to Fox.''\61\ Mr. Spicer echoed those
remarks: ``I don't think we regret anything. As the president
said, I was just reading off media reports.''\62\ Fox News
later disavowed the report. ``Fox News knows of no evidence of
any kind, that the now president of the United States was
surveilled at any time, in any way, full stop.''\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\Id.
\62\Id.
\63\Peter Sterne, Fox News: ``No evidence of any kind'' that Obama
wiretapped Trump, Politico, Mar. 17, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States intelligence community relies on a close
relationship with its British counterparts. In its defense of
the President's claim, the White House has directly endangered
that partnership. Dr. Kori Schake, who served on President
George W. Bush's National Security Council and advised the
McCain-Palin presidential campaign, put it this way: ``It
illustrates the extent to which the White House really doesn't
care what damage they do to crucial relationships in order to
avoid admitting their dishonesty. America's allies are having
to protect themselves from being tarred with the White House's
mendacity.''\64\ Eric Edelman, a career Foreign Service officer
and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy under President
George W. Bush, stated: ``I hope that this latest episode
doesn't drive a stake through the heart of the strongest
remaining element of the Anglo-American partnership.''\65\
Julianne Smith, who served as deputy national security adviser
to Vice President Joe Biden, warned: ``He will probably live to
see the day when he will regret firing off such an egregious
insult to Britain and then failing to apologize for it.''\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\Peter Baker & Steven Erlanger, Trump Offers No Apology for
Claim on British Spying, N.Y. Times, Mar. 17, 2017.
\65\Id.
\66\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Trump has given the world plenty of reason to
question the truth of his statements. His loss of credibility
has profound consequences for the security of the United
States. As the Wall Street Journal editorial board put it:
If President Trump announces that North Korea launched
a missile that landed within 100 miles of Hawaii, would
most Americans believe him? Would the rest of the
world? We're not sure, which speaks to the damage that
Mr. Trump is doing to his Presidency with his seemingly
endless stream of exaggerations, evidence-free
accusations, implausible denials and other falsehoods.
The latest example is Mr. Trump's refusal to back off
his Saturday morning tweet of three weeks ago that he
had ``found out that [Barack] Obama had my `wires
tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory'' on
Election Day. He has offered no evidence for his claim,
and a parade of intelligence officials, senior
Republicans and Democrats have since said they have
seen no such evidence.
Yet the President clings to his assertion like a drunk
to an empty gin bottle, rolling out his press spokesman
to make more dubious claims.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\A President's Credibility, Wall St. Journal, Mar. 21, 2017.
By requesting information about the President's
``wiretapping'' claims, the Committee would have put the burden
on the President to produce the evidence or issue an apology.
Even if the President had failed on those fronts, Congress
would have shown our partners that Congress will not condone
President Trump's reckless behavior. The Majority voted instead
to block H. Res. 203, and to leave our allies to wonder at
their inaction.
V. The White House is undermining the credibility of the only House
investigation of the President's ties to Russia
H. Res. 203 is important, not only to help the Committee
conduct basic oversight, but also to push back against an
Administration that has attempted to impede the House of
Representatives' only active investigation into ties between
the Trump campaign and the government of Vladimir Putin.
Despite Sean Spicer's protest that ``it's not in our
interest to talk about the process,''\68\ the timeline of
events suggests that the White House attempted to orchestrate
the release of ``secret'' information through Representative
Devin Nunes (R-CA), the Chairman of the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence. The Trump Administration appears to
have done so in an attempt to justify the President's tweets
and to undercut the intelligence committee's Russia
investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\Office of the Press Secretary, Press Briefing by Press
Secretary Sean Spicer, The White House, Mar. 31, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 20, 2017, Director James Comey took the
extraordinary step of announcing that the FBI is investigating
possible collusion between the President's advisors and the
Russian government. Director Comey also dismissed the
President's claim that he was wiretapped.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\Russian Active Measures Investigation: Open Hearing before the
H. Permanent Sel. Comm. on Intelligence, 115th Cong. (2017) (remarks of
Director James B. Comey, Federal Bureau of Investigation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometime on March 21, 2017 Chairman Nunes received a call
from ``a source.'' He went directly to the White House and
reviewed ``dozens'' of intelligence reports.\70\ The following
day, Chairman Nunes announced to the press that ``on numerous
occasions, the intelligence community incidentally collected
information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump
transition.''\71\ Chairman Nunes shared this information with
Speaker Ryan, then traveled back to the White House to brief
President Trump on the matter. He did so without sharing his
findings with any other member of the intelligence committee.
In a second press conference convened in the driveway of the
White House, Chairman Nunes stated that, although the new
information did not directly support the President's
wiretapping claim, it did show that the President was probably
right to say he had been under surveillance.\72\ President
Trump later said that he felt ``somewhat'' vindicated by the
announcement.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\Emmarie Huetteman & Matthew Rosenberg, Confused by the Trump
Surveillance Drama? Here's a Timeline, N.Y. Times, Mar. 31, 2017.
\71\Greg Miller, et al., House Intelligence chair says Trump
campaign officials were ensnared in surveillance operations, Wash.
Post, Mar. 22, 2017.
\72\Matthew Rosenberg et al., Monitoring May Have ``Incidentally''
Picked Up Trump Aides, House Member Says, N.Y. Times, Mar. 22, 2017.
\73\Brian Bennett, Trump says he feels ``somewhat'' vindicated by
spying revelations from Rep. Devin Nunes, L.A. Times, Mar. 22, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 23, 2017, Mr. Spicer denied that the White House
had been the source of the information handed to Chairman
Nunes. ``I don't know why he would brief the Speaker and then
come down here to brief us on something we would have briefed
him on. It doesn't really seem to make a ton of sense.''\74\
Later that day, Chairman Nunes apologized ``for not sharing
information about the documents he saw with the Minority before
going public,'' but insisted that ``[t]he president didn't
invite me over'' to the White House.\75\ He subsequently
canceled an open hearing on the Russia investigation that had
been scheduled for the next week.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\Office of the Press Secretary, Press Briefing by Press
Secretary Sean Spicer, The White House, Mar. 23, 2017.
\75\Austin Wright & Nolan D. McCaskill, Nunes apologizes for going
directly to White House with monitoring claims, Politico, Mar. 23,
2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ranking Member Adam Schiff (D-CA) called the Chairman's
actions ``an attempt to choke off'' public access to critical
information about the Trump Administration.\76\ Chairman Nunes
continued to withhold his secret evidence from his colleagues,
arguing that he would ``never reveal those sources and
methods.''\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\Rep. Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff), Twitter, Mar. 24, 2017,
11:46AM.
\77\Eric Beech, House intel panel chief Nunes says he will not
divulge his sources, Reuters, Mar. 28, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the Judiciary Committee prepared to mark up H. Res. 203,
it became increasingly clear that the White House itself was
the source of Chairman Nunes' ``evidence.'' Chairman Nunes said
he met his source on ``White House grounds . . . in order to
have proximity to a secure location where he could view the
information provided by the source.''\78\ Mr. Nunes is the
Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, and controls the largest secure space in the U.S.
Capitol complex. He did not need to travel to the White House
to gain access to a secure facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\Austin Wright, Nunes on White House grounds before monitoring
claim, Politico, Mar. 27, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Later reports show that at least two, and perhaps three,
White House officials provided Chairman Nunes with access to
the new information and to the White House grounds.\79\ At
least one such official had worked for Chairman Nunes before
joining White House Counsel's Office. These were not
``whistleblower-type'' individuals, as they had been described
by Chairman Nunes and Speaker Ryan.\80\ They were White House
employees. Mr. Spicer later described these officials as having
come across ``information that may support the questions raised
by the President'' in the ``ordinary course of their
work.''\81\ Ranking Member Schiff responded directly to that
comment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\Matthew Rosenberg et al., 2 White House Officials Helped Give
Nunes Intelligence Reports, N.Y. Times, Mar. 30, 2017; Greg Miller and
Karen DeYoung, Three White House officials tied to files shared with
House intelligence chairman, Wash. Post, Mar. 30, 2017.
\80\Mark Hensch, Ryan: Nunes source a ``whistleblower type,'' The
Hill, Mar. 30, 2017.
\81\Office of the Press Secretary, Press Briefing by Press
Secretary Sean Spicer, The White House, Mar. 31, 2017.
Well, the question for the White House and for Mr.
Spicer is the ordinary course of whose business?
Because, if these were produced either for or by the
White House, then why all of the subterfuge? There's
nothing ordinary about the process that was used here
at all.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\State of the Union, CNN, broadcast Apr. 2, 2017 (statement of
Rep. Adam Schiff).
After reports outed these White House officials, the
Administration invited Ranking Member Schiff and the heads of
the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to review the
``evidence'' on hand. Representative Schiff commented after his
visit to the White House: ``Nothing I could see today warranted
a departure from the normal review procedures, and these
materials should now be provided to the full membership of both
committees.''\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\Austin Wright, Schiff slams White House after reviewing
controversial intelligence, Politico, Mar. 31, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Observers on both sides of the aisle are troubled by
Chairman Nunes' behavior. Senator John McCain found the
situation ``bizarre'' and noted that ``[t]here is no
substantiation for what Chairman Nunes said.''\84\ Ranking
Member Schiff argued that Chairman Nunes ``will need to decide
whether he is the chairman of an independent investigation . .
. or he is going to act as a surrogate of the White House,
because he cannot do both.''\85\ Representative Charlie Dent
(R-PA) appears to have lost faith in the House investigation
altogether. ``The Senate is going to lead this discussion . . .
the House is in a situation where the issue has become overly
politicized.''\86\ Senator McCain was even more direct: ``If
we're really going to get to the bottom of these things, it's
got to be done in a bipartisan fashion. And as far as I can
tell, Congressman Nunes killed that.''\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\Christiano Lima, McCain: House panel lost ``credibility'' to
handle Russia probe, Politico, Mar. 22, 2017.
\85\Id.
\86\Noland D. McCaskill, Rep. Dent: House intel probe ``overly
politicized,'' Politico, Mar. 29, 2017.
\87\This Week with George Stephanopoulos, ABC News, broadcast Apr.
2, 2017 (statement of Senator John McCain).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be clear, Chairman Nunes' announcement does not validate
President Trump's wiretapping claim. The President alleged that
the government targeted Trump Tower for surveillance, that the
surveillance was illegal, that it took place during the
campaign, and that President Obama ordered the operation. Even
if what Chairman Nunes shared with the press is accurate, it
does not support the President's accusation.
By coordinating with Chairman Nunes, the White House has
undercut the credibility of the only active House investigation
of the President's ties to Russia. Chairman Nunes cancelled
plans for a second open hearing on the Russia investigation.
That hearing would have featured former Acting Attorney General
Sally Q. Yates, former Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper, and former CIA Director John Brennan--all of whom have
disputed the President's wiretapping claim and expressed
concern about the Trump Administration's ties to the Russian
government.\88\ Public sentiment has turned against the
prospect of a credible investigation run by the House
intelligence committee.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\Greg miller and Karoun Demirjian, Chairman and partisan: The
dual roles of Devin Nunes raise questions about House investigation,
Wash. Post, Mar. 26, 2017.
\89\See, e.g., Editorial Board, Take Devin Nunes off Russian case,
USA Today, Mar. 22, 2017; Editorial, Rep. Nunes is a Lapdog in a
Watchdog Role, N.Y. Times, Mar. 23, 2017; Jennifer Rubin, Nunes shows
why he's incapable of running an investigation, Wash. Post, Mar. 23,
2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 203 would have given the House Judiciary Committee
an opportunity to contain this damage, and to conduct real
oversight in a credible manner.
At the markup of the resolution, Representative Jamie
Raskin (D-MD) offered an amendment that would have directed the
White House and the Department of Justice to produce any
information they have that is related to Chairman Nunes' late-
night visit to the White House and subsequent claims.
Representative Raskin explained:
Chairman Nunes went to the White House with information
that he did not first go to his committee with, [and]
it raises a number of very serious questions. Why did
Chairman Nunes need to brief the President on documents
clearly already in possession of the White House? Why
did he need to work with the White House to obtain and
examine these documents when he has subpoena power as
chairman of the Intelligence Committee? Why would he
brief the President, whose associates may very well be
the subject of the Intelligence Committee's
investigations and FBI investigations, and did he in
fact inadvertently become the leak that our colleagues
on the other side of the aisle have frequently
invoked''\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\Markup Tr. (statement of Rep. Jamie Raskin).
The Majority rejected Representative Raskin's amendment
because, in the view of Chairman Goodlatte, ``there is no
reason to request this information at this time.''\91\ The
Majority then rejected the underlying resolution, preferring
instead to be complicit in the President's obstruction of a
congressional investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\Id. (statement of Chairman Robert Goodlatte).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
In his opposition to H. Res. 203, Chairman Goodlatte noted
the FBI's acknowledgement of an investigation into the Trump
campaign's contacts with the Russian government. ``[W]e should
not be supplanting that with a blunderbuss approach where we
submit a resolution of inquiry, which does not even carry the
weight of a subpoena, asking for information that is already
being investigated by other committees and by the executive
branch.''\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do not so casually dismiss our Committee's jurisdiction
in this matter, particularly given the Trump Administration's
attempt to undermine the only active investigation of these
matters in the House of Representatives. H. Res. 203 would have
helped our Committee push back against a President who has
severely damaged his own credibility--and whose dalliance with
Chairman Nunes threatens ours. The Resolution would have placed
pressure on the Trump Administration to provide evidence for
the President's wiretap claim. If the Administration had
ignored our request, then we would have been justified in
resorting to the compulsory process mentioned by the Chairman.
Instead, the Majority will have its way, and the Committee will
take no official action with respect to the President's
apparent lies and the damage they have caused.
We will continue to press for answers and accountability,
both on President Trump's wiretapping claim and on the
underlying investigation into his connections to the government
of Vladimir Putin. We respectfully dissent from the Majority's
motion to disapprove H. Res. 203.
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]