[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 16, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2942-S2944]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Russia Investigation

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last week, the American people were 
stunned by what we learned happened in the White House. We saw an 
alarming set of developments about how this President is handling the 
investigation into Russia's interference with our democracy.
  Last Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from 
Sally Yates, whom President Trump had asked to serve as Acting Attorney 
General when he was first sworn into office. Ms. Yates testified that 
soon after the inauguration, she twice visited White House Counsel Don 
McGahn to warn him about National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. She 
warned that General Flynn had been compromised by his secret 
communications with Russian Ambassador Kislyak and that General Flynn 
could be blackmailed.
  Ms. Yates first visited White House Counsel McGahn on January 26. 
McGahn invited her back to ask followup questions the following day, on 
January 27. Those followups included questions about General Flynn's 
potential criminal exposure.
  What else happened on January 27? The President of the United States 
brought in FBI Director James Comey for a one-on-one dinner, where he 
reportedly asked Director Comey for a pledge of loyalty. Is the timing 
of this Comey dinner curious? You bet it is. According to Press 
Secretary Sean Spicer, President Trump was briefed immediately by White 
House Counsel McGahn after Ms. Yates' warning. That means the President 
knew about the Justice Department's concerns with Flynn when he met 
Director Comey for dinner.
  Was the President's request for loyalty from Director Comey an 
attempt to impede the Justice Department's investigation into General 
Flynn? Was it an effort by the President to inoculate himself from 
Russia-related investigations? These are unanswered questions. But when 
Director Comey reportedly refused to swear his loyalty to President 
Trump, he apparently sealed his fate as Director of the FBI.
  Last Tuesday evening, President Trump fired Director Comey while 
Comey was giving a speech to FBI agents in Los Angeles. The reason? 
Well, on Thursday, the President made clear that the Russia 
investigation was on his mind when he fired Director Comey. He said to 
Lester Holt of NBC: ``When I decided to do it, I said to myself, you 
know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story.'' 
President Trump later said that the Russia investigation ``should be 
over with, in my opinion, should have been over a long time ago.'' 
Then, on Friday, the President found time to threaten Mr. Comey on 
Twitter, implying that he had taped their conversations and that he 
would release the tapes if Comey disclosed what he knew.

[[Page S2943]]

  Let's be clear. The President is in dangerous territory here. What 
the President is doing when it comes to potential obstruction of 
justice is similar to a chapter in history many of us remember. On 
October 20, 1973, President Nixon fired special prosecutor Archibald 
Cox when his Watergate investigation got too close to the White House. 
That sparked a constitutional crisis in America.
  Now we have learned that President Trump has disclosed highly 
classified information to the Russian Foreign Minister and that same 
Ambassador, Kislyak. The Washington Post reported that the President 
specifically revealed extremely sensitive intelligence considered so 
sensitive that details were being withheld from America's allies and 
tightly restricted even within our own government. Last night, the 
White House denied this happened. This morning, however, President 
Trump confirmed in two separate tweets that the story was true.
  This kind of disclosure is what former Director Comey and just about 
every other congressional Republican described last year as ``extremely 
reckless'' in the handling of classified information. It jeopardizes 
critical intelligence sources in the fight against ISIL and the broader 
fight by America against terrorism.
  This morning, European officials reacted, told the Associated Press 
that at least one European country might stop sharing intelligence with 
the United States if this is how it is going to be treated. That is 
not, as the majority leader described it this morning, ``drama.'' This 
is a real consequence of a dangerous President putting American lives 
at risk. This is truly incredible and historic. It is a national 
security breach by the President of incredible proportions. How in the 
world can we trust the President to put the national security needs of 
the American people ahead of his own?
  There are a lot of parallels between the Watergate era and what we 
see today, but one major difference from the Nixon era to the Trump era 
is the willingness of Republicans in Congress to speak out against the 
abuse of power and to actually serve as a check on the Presidency. Back 
in Nixon's day, there were Republicans in Congress who were willing to 
speak truth to power, to say: Enough of the lies and damage to our 
democratic institutions, and to put the country ahead of party.
  Listen, in November of 1973, just a few weeks after the Saturday 
Night Massacre, Senator Edward Brooke of Massachusetts was one of the 
first Republicans to stand up and say he did not feel the country could 
``stand the trauma that it has been through for the past few months.''
  In July of 1974, Republican Congressman Lawrence Hogan of Maryland 
said:

       The evidence convinces me that my President has lied 
     repeatedly, deceiving public officials and the American 
     people. . . . Do we want to be the party loyalists who in 
     ringing rhetoric condemn the wrongdoings and scandals of the 
     Democratic Party and excuse them when they are done by 
     Republicans?

  On the same day, Republican Congressman William Cohen of Maine said:

       I have been faced with the terrible responsibility of 
     assessing the conduct of a President that I voted for, 
     believed to be the best man to lead this country, who has 
     made significant lasting contributions toward securing peace 
     in this country and throughout the world, but a President who 
     in the process, by act or acquiescence, allowed the rule of 
     law and the Constitution to slip under the boots of 
     indifference and arrogance and abuse.

  Republican Congressman from Virginia M. Caldwell Butler said:

       For years we Republicans have campaigned against corruption 
     and misconduct. . . . But Watergate is our shame.

  Republican Congressman Paul Findley of Illinois, whom I ran against 
when I first had the privilege to serve in the House and whom today I 
call a friend, said a month later:

       Hearings of the Judiciary Committee and developments in the 
     courts have, I believe, clearly established gross negligence, 
     maladministration and moral insensitivity on the part of the 
     President.

  That same month, Republican Senator Barry Goldwater from Arizona 
said:

       There are only so many lies you can take, and now there has 
     been one too many.

  In fact, at the same time, Senate Republicans nominated Goldwater to 
deliver a direct message to President Nixon. Goldwater, along with the 
House Republican leader, John Jacob Rhodes, and the Senate Republican 
leader, Hugh Scott, went to the White House, sat directly in front of 
President Nixon's desk, and explained that enough was enough.
  These courageous Republicans were, of course, talking about lies, 
corruption, the obstruction of justice, and a danger to our democratic 
system of government emanating from the Nixon White House. They took 
our oath of office to protect the Constitution against all enemies, 
foreign and domestic, and certainly above a party or short-term policy 
gain--they took it seriously, and to their courage, we and history owe 
them a debt of gratitude.
  So I ask today, amid a swirling and deeply troubling mix of lies--
nearly 500 in just the first 100 days of this new Presidency--
obfuscation, the withholding of information, attempts to interfere with 
Federal investigations regarding possible collusion with a foreign 
adversary, and thinly veiled threats against those involved in such 
investigations by our current President, where are the many Republican 
patriots who are ready to stand up against these troubling abuses and 
threats?
  It has now been more than 7 months since 17 of our intelligence 
agencies provided overwhelming evidence of a Russian attack on our 
democracy and an attempt to help elect someone seen as more favorable 
to their interests, not our interests. The evidence was damning and 
continues to emerge. Yet what has this Congress done during this same 
7-month period to uphold our oath to ``support and defend the 
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and 
domestic''?
  Have congressional Republicans launched an independent investigation 
into this historic cyber act of war as we did after 9/11? 
Unfortunately, no.
  Have congressional Republicans retaliated against Russia for its 
actions by imposing sanctions or taking other actions, making sure its 
leadership knows it will pay a price for such attacks and think twice 
before doing so against the United States or at the expense of our 
allies? No.
  Have Republicans in Congress passed meaningful cybersecurity 
legislation to help protect America against future attacks and help any 
States that request help? No.
  Have Republicans demanded the appointment of a special prosecutor and 
insisted that the White House turn over all documents regarding the 
Trump campaign and ties with Russia, including potentially Russian 
intelligence? No.
  Have Republicans demanded that the President explain why he keeps 
denying Russia's attack on our election in the face of overwhelming 
evidence? No.
  In fact, has the majority party done anything to respond to, protect 
against, or even address these troubling attacks and refusals to 
cooperate from the White House? Sadly, no.
  Let me tell you what the majority party has found time to pursue 
during the 7 months after an attack on our Nation--a cyber act of war 
that will live in cyber infamy. Some of this you simply cannot make up.
  The Republican majorities in the House and in the Senate passed 
legislation making it easier to kill baby bear cubs and their mothers 
in their dens, making it easier to work with corrupt regimes overseas, 
making it harder for Americans to save for retirement, and they are 
trying to strip healthcare away from millions of Americans in order to 
pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America.
  This is, quite simply, an abdication of the majority party's 
responsibility in Congress to address an attack by a foreign power on 
our Nation and investigate possible collusion by an erratic and 
sometimes deceptive White House.
  Let me close by asking my Republican colleagues, whom I know care 
very deeply about the Senate and our Nation, When will you speak up 
about the travesty unfolding? When will you take even a fraction of the 
action that would have most certainly occurred if these outrages had 
occurred under a Democratic President?
  We need Republicans in Congress to stand up and protect our 
democratic institutions and to support a special prosecutor and an 
independent investigation into the Russian election interference now.
  I am hopeful some Republican Senators will have the courage to join 
us

[[Page S2944]]

in calling for a special prosecutor. We need someone above politics and 
above the controversy whom we can trust to really pursue the facts and 
the evidence, wherever it may lead, to determine what we can do to 
protect America from another Russian attack in our next election and to 
hold Russia accountable for what we have been through. It is time to do 
this on a bipartisan basis. America is waiting.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). If no one seeks recognition, time 
will be charged equally to both sides.
  The Senator from Louisiana.