[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: REPORT BY SPECIAL COUNSEL
ROBERT S. MUELLER III ON THE INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN
THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION; AND RELATED MATTERS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
THURSDAY, MAY 2, 2019
Serial No. 116-18
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
44-616 WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair
ZOE LOFGREN, California DOUG COLLINS, Georgia, Ranking
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas Member
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
Georgia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida Wisconsin
KAREN BASS, California STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York JIM JORDAN, Ohio
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island KEN BUCK, Colorado
ERIC SWALWELL, California JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
TED LIEU, California MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland MATT GAETZ, Florida
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
J. LUIS CORREA, California TOM MCCLINTOCK, California
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
LUCY MCBATH, Georgia BEN CLINE, Virginia
GREG STANTON, Arizona KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
BRENDAN BELAIR, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
MAY 2, 2019
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary...................................................... 2
The Honorable Doug Collins, Ranking Member, Committee on the
Judiciary...................................................... 3
OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: REPORT BY SPECIAL COUNSEL
ROBERT S. MUELLER III ON THE INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN
THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION; AND RELATED MATTERS
----------
Thursday, May 2, 2019
House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:03 a.m., in Room
2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jerrold Nadler
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson Lee,
Cohen, Johnson of Georgia, Deutch, Cicilline, Swalwell, Lieu,
Raskin, Jayapal, Demings, Correa, Scanlon, Garcia, Neguse,
McBath, Stanton, Dean, Mucarsel-Powell, Escobar, Collins,
Chabot, Gohmert, Jordan, Buck, Ratcliffe, Gaetz, Biggs,
McClintock, Lesko, Reschen-thaler, and Armstrong.
Staff Present: Aaron Hiller, Deputy Chief Counsel; Arya
Hariharan, Oversight Counsel; David Greengrass, Senior Counsel;
John Doty, Senior Advisor; Lisette Morton, Director, Policy,
Planning, and Member Services; Madeline Strasser, Chief Clerk;
Moh Sharma, Member Services and Outreach Advisor; Susan Jensen,
Parliamentarian/Senior Counsel; Will Emmons, Professional Staff
Member; Amy Rutkin, Chief of Staff to Representative Nadler;
Brendan Belair, Minority Staff Director; Bobby Parmiter,
Minority Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel; Jon Ferro,
Minority Parliamentarian; Carlton Davis, Minority Chief
Oversight Counsel; Ashley Callen, Minority Oversight Counsel;
and Erica Barker, Minority Clerk.
Chairman Nadler. The Judiciary Committee will come to
order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Committee at any time.
We welcome everyone to today's hearing on ``Oversight of
the U.S. Department of Justice: Report by Special Counsel
Robert Mueller III on the Investigation into Russian
Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election; and Related
Matters.''
I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Attorney General Barr has informed us that he will not
appear today. Although we worked to accommodate his concerns,
he objects to the prospect of answering questions by staff
counsel and to the possibility that we may go into executive
session to discuss certain sensitive topics.
Given the Attorney General's lack of candor before other
congressional committees, I believe my colleagues and I were
right to insist on the extended questioning. To my knowledge,
not even the Ranking Member was opposed to the idea of moving
into closed session, if necessary.
Even if Democrats and Republicans disagree on the format of
this hearing, we must come together to protect the integrity of
this Chamber. The Administration may not dictate the terms of a
hearing in this hearing room.
The challenge we face is bigger than a single witness. Late
last night, the Department of Justice wrote to inform us that
they will ignore our subpoena for the unredacted Mueller report
and the underlying evidence. They have made no meaningful
attempt at accommodating that subpoena, which was due
yesterday. The letter references the Attorney General's offer
to 12 Members of Congress--12 out of 435--to look behind some
but not all of the redactions provided that we agree not to
discuss what we see with our colleagues and that we leave our
notes behind at the Department of Justice.
It is urgent that we see the documents we have subpoenaed.
I cannot agree to conditions that prevent me from discussing
the full report with my colleagues and that prevent the House
from acting on the full report in any meaningful way. An
accommodation designed to prevent us from taking official
action is no accommodation at all.
Every member of this committee, Democrat and Republican
alike, should understand the consequences when the executive
branch tells us that they will simply ignore a lawful subpoena
from Congress.
If left unchecked, this Act of obstruction will make it
that much harder for us to hold the executive branch
accountable for waste, fraud, and abuse, or to enact
legislation to curb that kind of misconduct or any kind of
misconduct no matter which party holds this Chamber or the
White House at a given moment.
The challenge we face is also bigger than the Mueller
report. If all we knew about President Trump were contained in
the four corners of that report, there would be good reason to
question his fitness for office. The report is not where the
story ends. In the days since the Department of Justice
released a redacted version of the report, President Trump has
told Congress that he plans to fight all our subpoenas.
The average person is not free to ignore a congressional
subpoena, nor is the President. His promise to obstruct our
work extends far beyond his contacts with the Russian
Government and allegations of obstruction of justice. The
President is also preventing us from obtaining information
about voting rights, ACA litigation, and his cruel family
separation policy, among other matters.
The challenge we face is also not limited to this
committee. In recent weeks, Administration witnesses have
simply failed to show for properly noticed depositions. The
Secretary of the Treasury continues to ignore his clear
statutory obligation to produce the President's tax returns.
The President's private attorneys sued Chairman Cummings in his
personal capacity in an attempt to block the release of certain
financial documents.
Ladies and gentlemen, the challenge we face is that the
President of the United States wants desperately to prevent
Congress, a coequal branch of government, from providing any
check whatsoever to even his most reckless decisions. He is
trying to render Congress inert as a separate and coequal
branch of government.
The challenge we face is that if we don't stand up to him
together today, we risk forever losing the power to stand up to
any President in the future. The very system of government of
the United States, the system of limited power, the system of
not having a President as a dictator is very much at stake.
The Attorney General of the United States is sworn to
uphold the Constitution as our Nation's chief law enforcement
officer. He has an obligation to do everything in his power to
warn the President of the damage he risks and the liability he
assumes by directly threatening our system of checks and
balances and of limited government. Sadly, the Attorney General
has failed in that responsibility. He has failed to check the
President's worst instincts. He has not only misrepresented the
findings of the special counsel, but he had also failed to
protect the special counsel's investigation from unfair
political attacks. He has himself unfairly attacked the special
counsel's investigation. He has failed the men and women of the
Department of Justice by placing the needs of the President
over the fair Administration of justice. He has even failed to
show up today.
Yes, we will continue to negotiate for access to the full
report for another couple of days, and, yes, we will have no
choice but to move quickly to hold the Attorney General In
contempt if he stalls or fails to negotiate in good faith.
The Attorney General Must make a choice. Every one of us
must make the same choice. That choice is now an obligation of
our office. The choice is simple. We can stand up to this
President in defense of the country and the Constitution and
the liberty we love, or we can let the moment pass us by. I do
not--and we have seen in other countries what happens when you
allow such moments to pass by. I do not know what Attorney
General Barr will choose. I do not know what my Republican
colleagues will choose. I am certain that there is no way
forward for this country that does not include a reckoning with
this clear and present danger to our constitutional order.
History will judge us for how we face this challenge. We
will all be held accountable in one way or the other. If he
does not provide this Committee with the information it demands
and the respect it deserves, Mr. Barr's moment of
accountability will come soon enough.
I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Judiciary
Committee for his opening statement.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let's be very clear. There is only one reason and one
reason only at this point we are not being able to fulfill our
constitutional role of oversight, and that is Chairman's
demands that were played out yesterday.
We could have had a hearing today. What bothers me the most
about this is not only did, in standing for the questions that
were discussed and the issues that have been discussed between
me and Chairman, not only did he take the ability of the
American people to hear again from Bill Barr, he took our
ability to hear from Bill Barr today. To protect? Maybe.
Because some didn't feel like they could ask proper questions?
Maybe they wanted more staff questions? Who knows?
Yesterday we found this, that he claims that he wants staff
to question the Attorney General because the 5-minute-per-
member is not enough. Yet we approved a motion yesterday that
said we could do a whole hour, an extra hour, between Chairman
and myself. He could have took one of these fabulous Members
that he has and some excellent attorneys on his side, some of
the best--he could have given them all 30 minutes, and they
could have questioned the Attorney General any way they wanted
to.
Instead, we go back to a circus political stunt to say we
want it to look like an impeachment hearing because they won't
bring impeachment proceedings. That is the reason. Take
whatever you want to take. You can go out and have press
conferences. You could say it from this dais. You could say
whatever you want to have. The reasons Bill Barr is not here is
because the Democrats decided they didn't want him here today.
That is the reason he is not here.
You could have done anything else you wanted. What is
amazing to me is to say that he is scared of answering
questions, scared--you can disagree with the Attorney General
all you want. For yesterday, he sat for over almost 6 hours in
the Senate voluntarily answering questions, even on a second
round that was taken up by Democrats who wanted to ask more
questions.
You can agree, did he do good; did he do bad? It doesn't
matter. We are not getting that opportunity today because the
stunt and the circus continues over here.
All we had to do--we agreed to more time. We could talk
about executive session. But no. For some reason, for some
purpose, except the optics of something they can't do or don't
want to do right now, they wanted to have a staff member ask
questions.
I said before, if that staff member wants to ask questions
so desperately, run for Congress. Put a pin on. Find a
committee. I could continue on and on about the issue that we
have here and the impeachment agenda, and whatever you want to
have, and saying that he is blackmailing this committee; he is
terrified to come before this committee. I think yesterday he
proved he is not terrified to sit before anybody, especially
the Senate, which they actually extended the question time on.
He answered the question, whether you like the question or
not. As my chairman told me yesterday, it is not a matter of
whether we agree or disagree on this. We have the motion; we
move the motion; we do the motion. You can agree with the
Attorney General or disagree with the Attorney General, but not
hearing from him is a travesty for this Committee today.
I would be remiss if I also did not mention the largest
tragedy of this day that actually was from yesterday.
The chairman just stated a few moments ago that we can't
let moments pass, and I agree completely, because what happened
yesterday on this dais was a travesty. When you do not
recognize Members for valid motions, when you call things
dilatory, questioning the motives of what Members are doing it
for. I have sat on this Committee for 6 years. I have sat
through hours of motions to strike the last word, of giving
other Members on the minority side more time. One of my biggest
concerns I ever had with Chairman Goodlatte is, why do you let
it continue? Just call the previous question. On two occasions
last Congress, he did on resolutions of inquiry, after almost 6
to 7 hours of debate.
The question I have here is not what Bill Barr is scared
of? My question is, what are the Democrats scared of? They
don't want Bill Barr here today. They have had the report. They
have read it. They don't like what is in it. The chairman won't
even go look at what the Attorney General offered him. It is
pretty amazing to me he wants to go in executive session and
ask questions about it, but he won't go read it.
Now, you can go read it and ask for more. Here is the
problem today, and this problem from yesterday is not over. If
the majority wants to run a Committee in which minority rights
do not matter, parliamentary procedure does not matter--we saw
it on full display yesterday--it will not continue. We will
continue this exercise, and we will exercise what we have as a
minority, which is the minority right to ask questions, to make
motions. Because at the end of the day, unless we have
forgotten, Mr. Chairman, you have got more votes than we do;
you will get what you want. Just like we sat on this side and
you sat on this side and got to spend hours talking about
whatever you wanted to talk about while Chairman Goodlatte sat
there and let you do it. All you want to do--and the question
that bothered me the most yesterday was: We have got time; we
got to get on to another bill.
Timing does not trump minority rights. There is not a
member on this dais that should say it is not. Freshman Members
or anybody else who is here for the first time, that is not how
this Committee works. If you don't believe me, ask Chairman
Sensenbrenner. For three times, three times was chairman of
this subcommittee. He laid it out clearly yesterday.
When we degrade Members on my side, calling Mrs. Lesko's
amendment ridiculous, calling ours dilatory, that is just wrong
and should offend everybody on this dais.
Mr. Chairman, this is wrong. The tragedy of today is not
that you have an empty chair, not that you have props. You can
call the Attorney General whatever you want. I am reminded of
sticks and stones kind of quote. What really bothers me today
is the travesty of what happened to minority rights yesterday.
There is not a member of the Democrats who were on this
Committee last year that can honestly look me in the face and
say you all were not treated much better by a chairman who
actually followed the rules than we were treated yesterday.
I yield back.
Chairman Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Collins.
Ordinarily, at this point, I would introduce the witness.
Instead we will conclude this proceeding.
I just want to say we didn't choose not to have Mr. Barr
come. He chose. We cannot permit him or anybody in the
Administration to dictate the manner in which we function. This
does not include our inquiry into the Attorney General's
handling of the Mueller report nor his conduct before Congress.
Mr. Gaetz. Point of parliamentary inquiry.
Chairman Nadler. Nor does it conclude our efforts--
Mr. Gaetz. I seek recognition--
Chairman Nadler. --of the entire report and its underlying
materials.
We will not hear from the Attorney General today. This
Committee intends to obtain the information that it needs to
conduct its constitutional oversight and legislative
responsibilities. We will defend the prerogatives of Congress.
We will defend the rights of the American people to know what
is going on. We will defend the constitutional scheme of equal
and coordinate branches of government. We will make sure that
no President becomes a monarch. We need the information without
delay. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 9:20 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[all]