Robert Mueller Memo
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Con. Res. 24.
Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 24 expresses the sense of Congress that any report Special Counsel Robert Mueller delivers to the Attorney General should be released to the public and to Congress. This concurrent resolution is important for several reasons.
First, transparency is fundamental to the special counsel process, especially when dealing with matters of national security involving the President.
In January 2017, the U.S. intelligence community unanimously reported that ``Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. Presidential election'' and that ``Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.'' As a result of the importance of this charge and the clear conflict of interest in a matter involving the President, Robert Mueller was appointed as special counsel by the Acting Attorney General ``in order for the American people to have full confidence in the outcome.''
This is why in the only other instance involving the appointment of a special counsel under the regulations, concerning the Waco tragedy, the special counsel's report was released in full by the Attorney General.
Second, this resolution is critical because of the many questions and criticisms of the investigation raised by the President and his administration. It is important that Congress stand up for the principle of full transparency at a time when the President has publicly attacked the Russian investigation more than 1,100 times and counting. Among other things, the President has repeatedly referred to the investigation as a ``witch hunt'' and called it a ``hoax,'' ``rigged,'' and a ``scam.''
This resolution is also needed because high-ranking DOJ officials have indicated that they may not release information about individuals who are not indicted. Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein stated last month that ``if we aren't prepared to prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt in court, then we have no business making allegations against American citizens.''
This normally salutary policy must not apply in the event the Department adheres to its policy that it cannot indict a sitting President. To maintain that a sitting President cannot be indicted no matter how much evidence there is because he is a sitting President, and then to withhold evidence of wrongdoing from Congress because the President cannot be charged, is to convert DOJ policy into the means for a coverup.
Third, releasing the Mueller report, even in its entirety, does not absolve the Department of Justice of its obligation to provide Congress with the underlying evidence uncovered by the special counsel. This expectation is well grounded in precedent set by the Department just in the last Congress in connection with three Republican-led investigations into Hillary Clinton's emails, the dismissal of former FBI Acting Director McCabe, and allegations of bias concerning the Russian investigation.
With respect to the investigation involving Secretary Clinton's emails, this included the Department of Justice releasing to Congress more than 880,000 pages of documents regarding the FBI's decisionmaking, identifying to Congress the names of career officials involved in the charging decision, identifying to Congress specific court cases relied on in the charging decision, and making numerous DOJ and FBI personnel available to Congress for transcribed interviews.
With respect to the dismissal of former Acting Director McCabe, this included releasing to Congress all documents relied on by the Office of Professional Responsibility in making its decision.
With respect to claims of bias in the Russian investigation, this included not only releasing to the public an otherwise classified foreign intelligence application, but also releasing to Congress: one, all underlying documents and communications involving the FISA applications; two, four memos detailing the former FBI Director's communications with the President; three, materials pertaining to classified briefings involving the Trump and Clinton Presidential campaigns; and four, making even more DOJ and FBI officials available for a total of 21 transcribed interviews and hearings.
These precedents make clear the obligation of the Department of Justice to release all evidence with respect to the Russian investigation.
A vote for this resolution will send a clear signal to both the American people and to the Department of Justice that Congress believes transparency is a fundamental principle necessary to ensure that government remains accountable to the public.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this commonsense resolution.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Waters), the distinguished chairwoman of the Financial Services Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER.
Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Nadler for his leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution requesting that Special Counsel Mueller's report be made available to the public.
There are three reasons why this must happen.
First, the taxpayers paid for this report. The American people funded this investigation. They have a right to see the contents of the report of the investigation.
Second, internal bureaucratic Department of Justice policies do not apply to Congress, especially on matters of national importance.
And third, if we don't get this report, it could amount to a cover- up.
The United States Constitution does not say that a sitting President cannot be indicted. There is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent that.
Unfortunately, the Department of Justice has taken the policy position that they are not going to indict a sitting President, which means that the only institution that can hold the President accountable is Congress. If we do not get this information, we cannot effectively do our jobs, we cannot hold the President accountable, and it is something that the American public wants to see.
Over 87 percent of respondents in a recent poll say that this report should be made available to Congress and to the American public. If the Department of Justice does not do this, we all need to ask: What are they trying to hide?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Jayapal), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman very much for yielding.
I, too, add my appreciation to Mr. Collins' eagerness to adhere to what I think is an appropriate policy that reasserts the article I authority, if you will, of the Congress. And I think it is important for my colleagues to recognize that Americans are wondering. They are wondering. They have heard over and over again of Russian collusion. They have heard the factual affirmation that the Russians did interfere with the 2016 election and tried to interfere with the 2018 election. Therefore, it is important for them, in their concern, to be informed. They are taxpayers. We say this all the time.
And it is important to note that, through this investigation, the National Security Advisor and former foreign policy advisor and many others have gone to court because of Mr. Mueller.
It is indeed important to know that we have learned much because of his report, but we have not learned all. And we must overcome Attorney General Barr's hesitation, because the American people have made the point. The point is that 68 percent of them say that they would like to see this report.
Now, we know that it has been bandied around that we cannot indict a President. This is not about indicting a President. But assuming, arguendo, that this regulation is correct, that someone thinks that that is constant law and the President cannot be subjected to criminal process and, therefore, cannot and should not be indicted, it is a logical fallacy to say that because he cannot be indicted by virtue of his office and because it is the Justice Department's regulation not to reveal information about unindicted parties and individuals.
The Justice Department cannot reveal any information or potential wrongdoing by the President and not reveal any information to the body that possesses the constitutional responsibility for holding this President accountable.
So let us follow good policy. Even the words of Attorney General Barr that recognizes that the DOJ's purpose is to release investigations in the public interest. This is in the public interest.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to all that we do this in a bipartisan way to give to the American people what they deserve and what they want.
Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committee on Judiciary, which has oversight of the Department of Justice, and as a Senior Member of the Committee on Homeland Security, which has oversight over our election security infrastructure, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 24.
Mr. Speaker, I rise because I believe our nation will soon be at an inflection point.
For many years now, Americans have wondered about the role of Russia's interference in the 2016 election and whether that crime was aided and abetted by Associates of the Trump Campaign.
Americans have been concerned as we have watched a parade of colleagues and contemporaries of the President hauled before court.
This includes the President's National Security Advisor, his longtime confidante, his former foreign policy advisor, and yesterday his former campaign manager and his former campaign manager.
Indeed, the future that awaits the President's former campaign manager is bleak--he is facing 7.5 years in federal prison, and today a 16-count indictment was returned in Manhattan detailing residential mortgage fraud, conspiracy and falsifying business records.
Indeed, most if not all of what we have learned about those who surround the president has been because of the work of the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller.
It is important that whatever work Mr. Mueller has done, be shared by the American people.
This is for any number of reasons.
First of all, broad swaths of the American people want this report published.
The last public opinion poll conducted showed that 68% of Americans want this Mueller report published.
Next, the entire purpose of appointing a special counsel was because the president's first attorney General had to recuse himself because he was found to be less-than-truthful about his contacts with Kremlin officials during the 2016 campaign, on behalf of then Candidate Trump.
According to the former Acting Attorney General, the Special Counsel was appointed in order for the American people to have full confidence in the outcome of the investigation . . . the public must be assured that government officials administer the law fairly.
And thus far, Mr. Mueller's investigation has revealed the public indictment of 34 individuals, 3 companies, 7 guilty pleas and one 1 conviction following trial.
Through the work done by Mr. Mueller and his ``speaking indictments,'' we learned that Russian military officials tried to wage an active measures campaign.
We know that the Russians manipulated our social media systems.
They did this by turning our social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook, into rowdy and unwieldy debates that turned Americans against one another.
They did this by creating fake online social media accounts and populated them on social media platforms.
After infiltrating the social media accounts of real Americans, these fake accounts sought to sow discord in these online communities by purposely exacerbating divisions within our nation and creating new ones--all with the intent of pitting Americans against one another.
While they were distorting the social media landscape, they were also selectively disseminating emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee and the campaign of Hillary Clinton with the purpose of timing the dissemination to maximize political damage on Secretary Clinton's campaign.
All the while, the President was encouraging this behavior.
And, despite protestations by the President, this is not a witch hunt--it has yielded the public indictments of 34 individuals and 3 companies, 7 guilty pleas, and 1 conviction.
The American people are watching and paying attention.
The most recent public opinion poll shows that a super majority of Americans--a full 68%--wants the Mueller Report made public.
The Mueller Report is one unparalleled way in which Americans can learn this information with confidence.
And, finally, we must tackle a serious issue that is being discussed among elected officials and the Justice Department.
Over the past two years, we have been told that it is Justice Department regulations that a sitting President cannot be indicted. I will note that this principle has not been tested in court.
That regulation was implemented during the Watergate investigation, under the theory that the President cannot be subjected to criminal process.
But, assuming arguendo that this regulation is correct, and the President cannot be subjected to criminal process and therefore cannot and should not be indicted, it is a logical fallacy to say that because he cannot be indicted by virtue of his office, and because it is Justice Department regulation not to reveal information about unindicted parties and individuals, the Justice Department cannot reveal any information of potential wrongdoing by the President and not reveal any information to the body that possesses the constitutional responsibility for holding this president accountable.
For these reasons, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 24, and urge my colleagues to support it and urge passage so the American people can learn how the 2016 election became a crime scene.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Kaptur).
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the gentleman from Georgia implied a few minutes ago, that we shouldn't be wasting our time on this because it only restates what the regulations require and the Judiciary Committee ought to be spending its time more productively, I simply want to say, first, that the Democratic House majority and the Judiciary Committee are not focused on the President to the exclusion of our legislative priorities.
In the 2 months since we organized, the Judiciary Committee has passed H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, through the House and has passed H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019, through the House. H.R. 1585, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019, passed through the committee. We have passed H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2019, through the House.
The Judiciary Committee has also held a hearing to begin the process of reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act and held a hearing to examine the state of competition in the healthcare industry, as well as the T- Mobile-Sprint merger.
We have introduced H.R. 5, the Equality Act; H.R. 1327, the Never Forget the Heroes: Permanent Authorization of September 11th Victim Compensation Fund Act; and the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019, the so-called Dreamers bill.
These are some of the things we have been doing besides looking into the possible misconduct by the President.
In closing, I would like to include the following items in the Record:
First, the U.S. Intelligence Community report concluding that Vladimir Putin ordered a misinformation campaign directed against the 2016 Presidential election and displayed a clear preference for then- candidate Donald Trump. Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections (January 6, 2017) key judgments
Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.
We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.
Moscow's approach evolved over the course of the campaign based on Russia's understanding of the electoral prospects of the two main candidates. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign began to focus more on undermining her future presidency.
Further information has come to light since Election Day that, when combined with Russian behavior since early November 2016, increases our confidence in our assessments of Russian motivations and goals.
Moscow's influence campaign followed a Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations--such as cyber activity--with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or ``trolls.'' Russia, like its Soviet predecessor, has a history of conducting covert influence campaigns focused on US presidential elections that have used intelligence officers and agents and press placements to disparage candidates perceived as hostile to the Kremlin.
Russia's intelligence services conducted cyber operations against targets associated with the 2016 US presidential election, including targets associated with both major US political parties.
We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks.
Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple US state or local electoral boards. DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying.
Russia's state-run propaganda machine contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences.
We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin- ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Second, I include a February 22, 2019, letter to the Attorney General from six House committee chairs expressing the expectation that the Mueller report will be made public and that the Department will make the underlying investigative materials available to committees upon request. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, February 22, 2019. Hon. William P. Barr, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Attorney General: Recent reports suggest that Special Counsel Robert Mueller may be nearing the end of his investigation into ``any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump'' and other matters that may have arisen directly from the investigation. As you know, Department of Justice regulations require that, ``[a]t the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.''
After nearly two years of investigation--accompanied by two years of direct attacks on the integrity of the investigation by the President--the public is entitled to know what the Special Counsel has found. We write to you to express, in the strongest possible terms, our expectation that the Department of Justice will release to the public the report Special Counsel Mueller submits to you--without delay and to the maximum extent permitted by law.
There also remains a significant public interest in the full disclosure of information learned by the Special Counsel about the nature and scope of the Russian government's efforts to undermine our democracy. To the extent that the Department believes that certain aspects of the report are not suitable for immediate public release, we ask that you provide that information to Congress, along with your reasoning for withholding the information from the public, in order for us to judge the appropriateness of any redactions for ourselves.
We also expect that the Department will provide to our Committees, upon request and consistent with applicable law, other information and material obtained or produced by the Special Counsel regarding certain foreign actors and other individuals who may have been the subject of a criminal or counterintelligence investigation. This expectation is well- grounded in the precedent set by the Department in recent years. In other closed and pending high-profile cases alleging wrongdoing by public officials, both the Department and the FBI have produced substantial amounts of investigative material, including classified and law enforcement sensitive information, to the House of Representatives.
Finally, although we recognize the policy of the Department to remain sensitive to the privacy and reputation interests of individuals who will not face criminal charges, we feel that it is necessary to address the particular danger of withholding evidence of misconduct by President Trump from the relevant committees.
If the Special Counsel has reason to believe that the President has engaged in criminal or other serious misconduct, then the President must be subject to accountability either in a court or to the Congress. But because the Department has taken the position that a sitting President is immune from indictment and prosecution, Congress could be the only institution currently situated to act on evidence of the President's misconduct. To maintain that a sitting president cannot be indicted, and then to withhold evidence of wrongdoing from Congress because the President will not be charged, is to convert Department policy into the means for a cover-up. The President is not above the law.
Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Rep. Jerrold Nadler,
Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary. Rep. Elijah Cummings,
Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Reform. Rep. Adam Schiff,
Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Rep. Eliot Engel,
Chairman, House Foreign Affairs Committee. Rep. Maxine Waters,
Chairwoman, House Committee on Financial Services. Rep. Richard Neal,
Chair, House Ways and Means Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Third, the introduction to the final report to the Deputy Attorney General concerning the 1993 confrontation at the Mount Carmel complex. Introduction
This Report contains the findings of the Special Counsel in response to the questions directed to him by Attorney General Janet Reno in Order No. 2256-99, dated September 9, 1999. The questions pertain to the 1993 confrontation between federal law enforcement officials and the Branch Davidians at the Mt. Carmel complex near Waco, Texas. The Report is issued pursuant to Section (e) of Order No. 2256-99 which provides, in relevant part, that the Special Counsel shall submit ``to the maximum extent possible . . . a final report . . . in a form that will permit public dissemination.''
The Office of Special Counsel has organized the Report in the following format:
(I) a description of the Issues investigated by the Special Counsel;
(II) the Conclusions of the Special Counsel;
(III) a description of the Investigative Methods used by the Special Counsel;
(IV) a Statement of Facts relevant to the Special Counsel's investigation;
(V) Exhibits to the text of the Report; and
(VI) Appendices that include a narrative summary of the relevant beliefs and practices of the Branch Davidians, a summary of expert findings, a chronological table of events, and the reports of experts retained by the Office of Special Counsel.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. And fourth, the Department of Justice commentary interpreting the special counsel regulations. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of the Attorney General 28 CFR Parts 0 and 600 [A.G. Order No. 2232-99] Office of Special Counsel
AGENCY: Department of Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This order amends the Code of Federal Regulations to provide regulations concerning Attorney General appointment of Special Counsel to investigate and, when appropriate, to prosecute matters when the Attorney General concludes that extraordinary circumstances exist such that the public interest would be served by removing a large degree of responsibility for a matter from the Department of Justice. These regulations replace the procedures for appointment of independent counsel pursuant to the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994.
EFFECTIVE DATES: July 1, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John C. Keeney, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, (202) 514-2621. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background
The Attorney General is promulgating these regulations to replace the procedures set out in the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994. These regulations seek to strike a balance between independence and accountability in certain sensitive investigations, recognizing that there is no perfect solution to the problem. The balance struck is one of day-to-day independence, with a Special Counsel appointed to investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute matters when the Attorney General concludes that extraordinary circumstances exist such that the public interest would be served by removing a large degree of responsibility for the matter from the Department of Justice. The Special Counsel would be free to structure the investigation as he or she wishes and to exercise independent prosecutorial discretion to decide whether charges should be brought, within the context of the established procedures of the Department. Nevertheless, it is intended that ultimate responsibility for the matter and how it is handled will continue to rest with the Attorney General (or the Acting Attorney General if the Attorney General is personally recused in the matter); thus, the regulations explicitly acknowledge the possibility of review of specific decisions reached by the Special Counsel.
The regulations also remove Sec. 0.14, setting forth procedures for Special Independent Counsels for members of Congress. The regulations in that section have been suspended since April 19, 1989. 54 FR 15752. Section-by-Section Discussion
Section 600.1. Grounds for Appointing a Special Counsel
``The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and--
(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and
(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.''
Section 600.2. Alternatives Available to the Attorney General
``When matters are brought to the attention of the Attorney General that might warrant consideration of appointment of a Special Counsel, the Attorney General may:
(a) Appoint a Special Counsel;
(b) Direct that an initial investigation, consisting of such factual inquiry or legal research as the Attorney General deems appropriate, be conducted in order to better inform the decision; or
(c) Conclude that under the circumstances of the matter, the public interest would not be served by removing the investigation from the normal processes of the Department, and that the appropriate component of the Department should handle the matter. If the Attorney General reaches this conclusion, he or she may direct that appropriate steps be taken to mitigate any conflicts of interest, such as recusal of particular officials.''
Discussion:
There are occasions when the facts create a conflict so substantial, or the exigencies of the situation are such that any initial investigation might taint the subsequent investigation, so that it is appropriate for the Attorney General to immediately appoint a Special Counsel. In other situations, some initial investigation, whether factual or legal, may be appropriate to better inform the Attorney General's decision. This provision is intended to make it clear that a variety of approaches, even in cases that might create an apparent conflict of interest, may be appropriate, depending on the facts of the matter.
Section 600.3. Qualifications of the Special Counsel
``(a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government. Special Counsels shall agree that their responsibilities as Special Counsel shall take first precedence in their professional lives, and that it may be necessary to devote their full time to the investigation, depending on its complexity and the stage of the investigation.
``(b) The Attorney General shall consult with the Assistant Attorney General for Administration to ensure an appropriate method of appointment, and to ensure that a Special Counsel undergoes an appropriate background investigation and a detailed review of ethics and conflicts of interest issues. A Special Counsel shall be appointed as a `confidential employee' as defined in 5 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2)(C).''
Section 600.4. Jurisdiction
``(a) Original Jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.
``(b) Additional Jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel concludes that additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in his or her original jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel's jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere.''
Discussion:
Under these regulations, it is intended that a Special Counsel's jurisdiction will be stated as an investigation of specific facts. The regulations also recognize, however, that accommodations can be made as necessary throughout the course of the investigation, with the Attorney General's approval. This provision establishes a protocol whereby Special Counsels are provided with an appropriate description of the boundaries of their investigation, with the full recognition that adjustments to that jurisdiction may be required.
Paragraph (b) establishes a single procedure through which a variety of different jurisdictional issues can be resolved. For example, a Special Counsel assigned responsibility for an alleged false statement about a government program may request additional jurisdiction to investigate allegations of misconduct with respect to the administration of that program; a Special Counsel may conclude that investigating otherwise unrelated allegations against a central witness in the matter is necessary to obtain cooperation; or a Special Counsel may come across evidence of additional, unrelated crimes by targets of his or her investigation. Rather than leaving the issue to argument and misunderstanding as to whether the new matters are included within a vague category of ``related matters,'' the regulations clarify that the decision as to which component would handle such new matters would be made by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel would report such matters to the Attorney General, and the Attorney General would decide whether to grant the Special Counsel jurisdiction over the additional matters.
``(c) Civil and Administrative Jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel determines that administrative remedies, civil sanctions or other governmental action outside the criminal justice system might be appropriate, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General with respect to the appropriate component to take any necessary action. A Special Counsel shall not have civil or administrative authority unless specifically granted such jurisdiction by the Attorney General.''
Discussion:
Paragraph (c) is intended to clarify that the Special Counsel's jurisdiction will cover only the criminal aspects of the matters within his or her jurisdiction, unless other jurisdiction is specifically granted by the Attorney General.
Section 600.5. Staff
``A Special Counsel may request the assignment of appropriate Department employees to assist the Special Counsel. The Department shall gather and provide the Special Counsel with the names and resumes of appropriate personnel available for detail. The Special Counsel may also request the detail of specific employees, and the office for which the designated employee works shall make reasonable efforts to accommodate the request. The Special Counsel shall assign the duties and supervise the work of such employees while they are assigned to the Special Counsel. If necessary, the Special Counsel may request that additional personnel be hired or assigned from outside the Department. All personnel in the Department shall cooperate to the fullest extent possible with the Special Counsel.''
Discussion:
This provision, providing for the assignment of appropriate personnel to assist the Special Counsel, also includes assignment of needed investigative resources from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It is anticipated that most personnel will be Department of Justice employees provided by detail to the Special Counsel, although the regulation provides for additional employment from outside the Department when necessary.
Section 600.6. Powers and Authority
``Subject to the limitations in the following paragraphs, the Special Counsel shall exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney. Except as provided in this part, the Special Counsel shall determine whether and to what extent to inform or consult with the Attorney General or others within the Department about the conduct of his or her duties and responsibilities.''
Section 600.7. Conduct and Accountability
``(a) A Special Counsel shall comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice. He or she shall consult with appropriate offices within the Department for guidance with respect to established practices, policies and procedures of the Department, including ethics and security regulations and procedures. Should the Special Counsel conclude that the extraordinary circumstances of any particular decision would render compliance with required review and approval procedures by the designated Departmental component inappropriate, he or she may consult directly with the Attorney General.''
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. I would also like to say, Mr. Speaker, that one reason for this resolution, given the fact that Mr. Barr, the Attorney General, has, in fact, said that he would want to release as much as possible--and we appreciate that statement--but he and Mr. Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, have both cited the Department policy not to comment on the conduct of someone not indicted.
That leads us to expect that a misapplication of the normal Department policy to a sitting President of not commenting on someone who is not indicted, the application of that normally good policy to a sitting President who the Department believes cannot be indicted because he is a sitting President, would, in fact, greatly limit the ability of the Department or the willingness of the Department to release information in the report to the Congress and to the public.
One of the reasons for this resolution is that we want to say, no, you cannot use that normally salutary policy to convert the Department's policy of never indicting a sitting President into a coverup that you can't comment or give to the Congress information about that.
If you can't indict a sitting President and you can't give the information to Congress, then you are holding the President above the law, and you are frustrating Congress' ability to do its job of holding an administration accountable.
Mr. Speaker, for all the reasons stated by all the people who spoke in favor of this resolution, myself and everyone else, I urge adoption of the resolution. I urge everyone to vote for it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source