[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 34 (Monday, February 27, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1431-S1432]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



            Calling for the Appointment of a Special Counsel

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have been concerned. As I read the 
press and talk with officials, I learn more about the troubling 
connections between the Russian Government and President Trump's 
campaign and administration.
  We already knew--it is very, very factual--that Russian President 
Putin ordered a multifaceted campaign to undermine public faith in our 
election and to help President Trump win in November. That is something 
all of us as Americans should be concerned about. Whether you are a 
Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent, when you have that kind of 
an attack on our democracy, it is a concern to all of us.
  Reports indicate that Trump officials were in repeated contact with 
senior Russian intelligence officials during this time. This comes on 
the heels of the President's National Security Advisor having to resign 
after providing misleading details on conversations he had with the 
Russian Ambassador concerning U.S. sanctions. But there is a lot we 
still don't know, including the extent of the contacts, who directed 
them, whether people who at one point or another left the Trump 
campaign were involved, whether there was collusion, and, of course, 
the obvious question: What did the President know and when he did he 
know it?
  The American people deserve to know the facts. They deserve a full 
and fair investigation that is free from any political influence. The 
White House has already demonstrated it is not going to respect the 
independence of this investigation. The fact that the White House Chief 
of Staff attempted to use the FBI--in violation of Justice Department 
policies--to suppress news reports about Russian contacts reveals why 
we really can't trust the White House to play by the rules. And, of 
course, the rules are very, very clear.
  For these reasons, I am calling on Attorney General Sessions to step 
aside on this issue and to appoint a special counsel to conduct an 
independent investigation. That is not an attack on Attorney General 
Sessions. I have known him for 30 years. I just want to make sure we do 
not have these continuing questions about what the President knew and 
when he knew it.
  Even a cursory review of the Justice Department's recusal standards 
reveals that the Attorney General does not--indeed, cannot--have the 
independence necessary to assure wary Americans that this investigation 
will be driven by the facts, not by relationships. Certainly those who 
have served as prosecutors--Attorney General Sessions has; I have--know 
that there are times when the prosecutor has to step aside and let 
someone else do it just so that everybody can be confident in the 
investigation.
  In fact, Justice Department regulations mandate that ``no employee 
shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has 
a personal or political relationship with . . . [a]ny person or 
organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject 
of the investigation.'' Of course, a ``political relationship'' is 
defined as ``a close identification with an elected official . . . 
arising from service as a principal adviser thereto.'' Prior to his 
confirmation, when we were holding the confirmation hearings on then-
Senator Jeff Sessions, I asked him whether he met the standard. It is 
not really a close call. The rule perfectly describes the relationship 
between Attorney General Sessions and President Trump. But he brushed 
the question off, claiming that he was ``merely . . . a supporter of 
the President's during the campaign.''
  Well, that is an obvious mischaracterization of the role he played as 
a top adviser to the Trump campaign. Attorney General--then-Senator--
Sessions was widely recognized as a central figure in the campaign. He 
had his fingerprints all over the President's policies. In fact, one of 
the President's top advisers, Steve Bannon, even called him the 
President's ``clearinghouse for policy and philosophy.'' That is a 
pretty close connection. I could hardly think of anything closer. To 
suggest the Attorney General was just ``a supporter'' and that he did 
not have a ``political relationship'' with the Trump campaign, when you 
look at the Bannon comments, that is patently false.
  If the Attorney General refuses to follow the Department's recusal 
standard--now as the head of the Department, well, then, I would hope 
he would follow his own recusal standards. Last year, just days before 
the election, then-Senator Sessions and other Trump campaign surrogates 
wrote an op-ed. He criticized then-Attorney General Lynch for not 
recusing herself from matters involving Secretary Clinton. The basis of 
his complaint was a ``39-minute conversation''--to use his words--that 
Attorney General Lynch had with former President Bill Clinton in 
Phoenix, AZ. I would hope he would set the same standard for himself 
that he sets for others because it is kind of hard to talk about a 
half-hour conversation and say that requires recusal when it comes to 
the Clintons, but a year's worth of vigorously campaigning with and 
vigorously advising does not when it comes to the Trump campaign. A 
year working on the Trump campaign doesn't count, but 39 minutes 
talking to former President Clinton does? Come on. If that is the 
standard for recusal in one case--I won't do the math on how many times 
39 minutes goes into a year, but I would say, using Jeff Sessions' own 
standards, he has far, far, far more reason to recuse himself in this 
matter.
  During the 20 years I have worked with him, Jeff Sessions has often 
spoken of his commitment to the rule of law. I know he feels strongly 
about

[[Page S1432]]

that, just as I do. As Senators, every one of us should. Certainly 
every one of us who has had the privilege to be a prosecutor should 
have a commitment to the rule of law. Well, Attorney General Sessions' 
commitment is now being tested.
  Whether we apply the Justice Department's recusal standard, which is 
very, very clear, or use the Jeff Sessions' 39-minute recusal standard, 
it is clear that Attorney General Sessions must step aside. In fact, 
nothing less than the integrity of our democracy is at stake with this 
investigation. And I do not say that lightly. Nothing less than the 
integrity of our democracy is at stake with this investigation. What 
did everybody know? When did they know it?
  It is essential that the investigation be led by someone who--in both 
appearance and in reality--is impartial and removed from politics. That 
does not describe someone who was in the trenches of a political 
campaign with the subjects of the investigation while they were 
allegedly engaged in the activity under investigation, or somebody who 
has been described by Steve Bannon as a ``clearinghouse for policy and 
philosophy'' for President Trump.
  For the good of the country, for the good of all of us--Republicans, 
Democrats, Independents--the Attorney General really has just one thing 
to do: Appoint a special counsel and let the public have the answers. 
What did everybody know? When did they know it? It is pretty 
simple. The people of Vermont, and I suspect throughout the country, 
would like to have those answers that go to the bedrock of our 
democracy.

  In my 42 years here, I have never seen anything that has concerned me 
so much as another country that does not have the best interests of the 
United States at heart trying to interfere in our election, another 
country trying to determine what the United States does. This is a 
country that does not have the United States' best interests at heart 
but a country that wants to manipulate the United States. This U.S. 
Senator, for the time I have in office, will continue to speak out 
against it.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LEAHY. Yes, of course, I will yield to the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank my colleague from the State of Vermont and, for 
many years, my fellow colleague on the Senate Judiciary Committee for 
his statement. I couldn't agree with him more that we need an 
independent, transparent investigation of this Russian invasion into 
the body politic of America in an effort to subvert our sovereignty. It 
was made by a country that is not our friend and was made at a time 
when they were trying to influence the outcome of an election.
  I just want to note to my colleague and friend from Vermont that 
during the break I visited Poland, Lithuania, and Ukraine. It was 
interesting. In Poland, they put up with the notion of Putin's 
interference on a daily basis. The most frightening prospect, of 
course, is the movement of military forces, which we hope never occurs, 
but they look at it as a very real threat. They have what they call the 
hybrid war. They said it isn't just the military; it is also his cyber 
attacks on our country, and it is also his propaganda on our country.
  One of the Polish leaders asked me a question: We have been 
wondering, Senator, if the United States is not willing to confront 
Russia with its invasion of your sovereignty in your Presidential 
election, would you be willing to stand up for your NATO allies if 
there is an effort of aggression by Putin? Would you be willing to 
stand up against Russia in those times?
  I think that is a legitimate issue. If we don't take what the Senator 
has raised very seriously about putting independence in the 
investigation of this matter, and we don't do it with dispatch, shame 
on us. But it is also going to say to the world that we did not respond 
in a positive and forceful way when it came to this aggression against 
the United States.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, if I might respond to my good friend and 
senior Senator from Illinois, he has been a friend and colleague for 
decades. The Judiciary Committee and the whole Senate has benefited 
from his knowledge.
  What the leader of Poland said to the distinguished Senator is a very 
chilling thing, Madam President. He knows from his own family ancestors 
how bad an area can be if it is under the domination of something like 
the then-Soviet Union and now Russia. He also knows from his own 
experience as an American how important it is that we have the freedoms 
we have.
  I was privileged, along with my wife Marcelle and several others--
Senator Cochran, Senator Udall, and Senator Bennet and Congressman 
McGovern--to visit Cuba and have long discussions with people who would 
like to see real democracy come, and then to go to Colombia where they 
have fought for over 50 years a terrible internal civil war with 
countless deaths and atrocities and to see how they were trying to 
bring back the rule of law and the rule of democracy. And we just sit 
there, and it is so easy for us who grew up in an era in which we 
believe in our democracy and we believe in our voices being heard, 
where sometimes we win elections and sometimes we lose them, but we 
believe in the fairness of it. It is so easy to sit there and think: 
But we do it right.
  This makes me wonder. Can we continue to say that? Can we be the 
beacon to the rest of the world? Can we say: Do as the United States 
does because we are open, we are transparent, we are honest.
  Well, this has not been open, transparent, or honest. Let's make it 
so. Let's not let it drag on. Let's go to it now so people can then 
start debating issues. I expect there will be areas where I will agree 
with the new administration and there are areas where I disagree with 
the new administration. But I want to know I am agreeing and 
disagreeing with an American administration, not with Vladimir Putin's 
administration.
  So I am moved by what my friend from Illinois has said. I hope the 
rest of the country listens because we are supposed to be the example. 
We pride ourselves on being the example. We are the oldest existing 
democracy in the world. Let's not do anything that will come back to 
haunt us.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moran). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.