Insisting Department of Justice Comply with Requests and Subpoenas
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Speaker, this so-called resolution of insistence is being rushed to the floor as an emergency measure.
There are many emergencies facing the United States at this hour. The subject matter of this resolution is not among them.
This resolution is wrong on the facts, wrong on the law, wrong on the rules, and a dangerous precedent to set for the House of Representatives.
First, the resolution is riddled with inaccuracies. Taking this document at face value, you might think that the Department of Justice had not already sent us hundreds of thousands of documents, many of which the sponsors of this resolution delight in leaking to the public.
It also relies heavily on the March 22 subpoena issued by Chairman Goodlatte, a subpoena that was not issued in compliance with House rules, and that, according to past House counselors with whom we have consulted, likely cannot be enforced.
Second, this resolution is premised on a demand for documents to which Congress is not entitled and which the Justice Department cannot give.
To be clear, I firmly believe that when the House Judiciary Committee asks the executive branch for information, our committee is entitled to that information in almost every case. But we are not entitled to information that goes to the core of an ongoing criminal investigation.
This prohibition is both a matter of constitutional law, as it falls to the executive branch to enforce the law, and a matter of basic fairness. It is wrong to inject politics into criminal proceedings.
I suspect that the sponsors of this resolution already know this. They are asking for documents that they know they will probably never receive, and they likely view this impossible request as a win-win proposition.
If they somehow bully the Department of Justice into turning over materials that go to the core of Special Counsel Mueller's investigation, that information could be and probably would be shared with the subject of the investigation, namely, President Trump. Indeed, Mayor Giuliani has hinted exactly that. Based on past precedent, that information would next be shared with anybody watching FOX News.
If they do not pry these documents from the Department, they will use that fact to further smear the special counsel, the Deputy Attorney General, and anyone else investigating the President. They have even suggested impeaching the Deputy Attorney General, a proposal that is both without historical precedent and patently ridiculous.
The real purpose of this resolution, and of this whole attempt, is to cast aspersions, is to defame the special prosecutor, the special counsel, and the people associated with him, the Deputy Attorney General.
Finally, voting on this resolution today sets a dangerous precedent. The majority will, in effect, have shown the American people that pure politics is more important than the facts and more important than the law. And for what?
You can force this fight with the leadership of the Department of Justice. You can demand documents that the Department cannot give us, and to which we are not entitled. You can attack the character of lifelong public servants like Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and Special Counsel Mueller. You can burn bridges with your colleagues to speed this resolution to the floor. But you cannot stop the special counsel's investigation.
Before Members vote today, we must ask: When the special counsel's work is complete, when the enormity of what he has found has been laid bare, how will the American people judge the House's actions here today?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Jackson Lee), the distinguished ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 970, which is before us now, includes a reference to a document unilaterally issued by the House Judiciary Committee on March 22, 2018. It is my understanding that the issuance of this purported subpoena is defective because it did not comply with committee rules providing that:
At least two business days before issuing any subpoena, the Chair shall consult with the Ranking Member, and the Chair shall provide a full copy of the proposed subpoena.
While, in this instance, the chairman did provide me, as ranking member, with a copy of a proposed subpoena on March 19, the document the chairman issued on March 22 was substantively and materially different from the document that was shared on March 19, in abrogation of committee rules.
My parliamentary inquiry is whether these circumstances would have any bearing on consideration of this resolution, H. Res. 970, and, absent that, whether the defective nature would have any bearing on any future attempts by the House to enforce the supposed subpoena?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Could the Chair repeat that last sentence? I couldn't hear.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. I am not going to repeat what I said before. I will summarize.
The request being made here is for information that the Department of Justice cannot provide because it relates to an ongoing criminal investigation and because some of it would identify informants. The motive is probably simply to politically embarrass the Department and provide a means of embarrassing and defaming the special prosecutor and the people associated with him in the Department.
I will read from a letter that the Deputy Attorney General sent to Senator Grassley and the Speaker of the House yesterday.
He quotes the following: ``Throughout American history, wise legislators have worked with Department officials to limit oversight requests in order to respect the Department's duty to protect national security, preserve personal privacy, and insulate investigations from the appearance of interference. For instance, the Department sent a letter to a House committee chair in 2000 describing the Department's policies on responding to congressional oversight requests. The letter explains:''--I am now quoting from the 2000 letter--``Such inquiries inescapably create the risk that the public and the courts will perceive political and congressional influence over law enforcement and litigation decisions. Such inquiries also often seek records and other information that our responsibilities for these matters preclude us from disclosing.''
That is the end of the quote from the 2000 letter.
``The letter quotes President Ronald Reagan, who wrote that a `tradition of accommodation should continue as the primary means of resolving conflicts between the branches.' Regardless of whether an interbranch information request is made by letter or subpoena, the relationship between the branches gives rise to `an implicit constitutional mandate,' to `reach an accommodation short of full-scale confrontation.'''--quote from President Reagan.
``It must not be the case that the Department is required to risk damage to reputations, put cases and lives at risk, and invite political interference by opening sensitive files to congressional staff without restriction.''--from the letter from Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein.
That is exactly what these requests would do. They would risk damage to reputations, put cases and lives at risk--already two people, two informants, have had their identities outed--and invite political interference by opening sensitive files to congressional staff without restriction.
We ought to let the special counsel complete his work without hindrance. We ought to see whatever the special counsel finds, react to it as appropriate, and perhaps hold hearings into the findings when we see them. All we know about the special counsel so far--unlike all the allegations against him and his investigation, it is a witch hunt, it is this, and it is that. All we really know is that there are 20 indictments, five guilty pleas, and we know what he has pleaded in court.
There have been leaks, so you can't really say anything about the investigation other than, in this time period, they have already gotten 20 indictments, five guilty pleas, including from some of the closest people to the President in his administration and in his campaign. We will see where it goes from there.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source