[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 86 (Thursday, May 18, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3038-S3039]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Russia Investigation

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to talk about the 
Russia questions that are on the minds of so many Americans. We had--I 
think, in the midst of all of the debate and controversy and genuine 
concern across the country--some good news yesterday when it was 
announced that Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein had made the decision 
to appoint a special counsel and, in this case, former FBI Director 
Mueller. That was good news because, No. 1, there was a special counsel 
who would undertake a review of these questions and in an independent 
fashion. I think people across not just Washington but even across the 
country were heartened by the fact that it was someone of the caliber, 
the experience, and the dedicated law enforcement commitment that 
Director Mueller demonstrated in his years with the FBI as Director, as 
a prosecutor. That was good news.
  We are grateful for that. I know we will have a chance in a little 
while to talk to the Deputy Attorney General about these issues. I 
think we have to examine a couple more questions that arise.
  So to review, on January 26, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates 
informed the Trump administration that General Flynn had apparently 
lied about having conversations with the Russian Ambassador, warning 
that it could open him up to blackmail. On May 8, Yates testified 
before the Senate Judiciary Committee and stated, contrary to claims by 
White House officials, that Flynn had discussed Russian sanctions in 
his those conversations with the Russian Ambassador.
  On January 27, President Trump hosted Director Comey at the White 
House, where the New York Times reported he asked Director Comey to 
pledge his loyalty. Director Comey reportedly promised only honesty.
  On January 30, President Trump fired Acting Attorney General Yates, 
claiming her dismissal was over a matter unrelated to Russia.
  On February 13, fully 18 days after the White House was originally 
informed by Yates of General Flynn's misconduct, General Flynn was 
relieved of his job after it became public that he lied about his 
conversations with the Russian Ambassador.
  The day after General Flynn was pushed out, the President reportedly 
summoned Director Comey to a private meeting in which he took the 
extraordinary step of asking him to drop the FBI investigation into 
Flynn.
  In March and again in May, Director Comey publicly confirmed that 
Trump associates were under investigation for possible coordination 
with Russia to interfere in the election. On May 9, President Trump 
fired Director Comey. His administration initially said it was based on 
a recommendation from Attorney General Sessions, who was supposed to be 
recused from anything to do with the Russia investigation, and Deputy 
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who reportedly had been asked by 
Director Comey just days earlier for additional funding for the Russia 
investigation. But then the President himself revealed he fired 
Director Comey explicitly because of the Russia investigation.
  The day after, the President tweeted a veiled threat that Director 
Comey ``better hope that there are no `tapes' '' of their conversation, 
raising the question of whether the President was surreptitiously 
recording his Oval Office meetings and whether tapes exist.
  While it may be unrelated, it also bears mentioning that, this week, 
it was also reported that President Trump revealed highly classified 
information to Russian officials in a private Oval Office meeting--
information that could jeopardize critical intelligence assets and risk 
undermining relationships with allies.
  I think there are some serious questions, even with the special 
counsel who has been named, even with two Intelligence Committees 
reviewing these matters. I would hope that, in addition to those 
reviews that are being undertaken--those investigations--that we also 
have an independent commission to get all of the answers we need so 
that we can ensure the American people that this will never happen 
again--that no foreign government, in this case, a foreign adversary, 
can interfere in an election at any time in our future.
  That guarantee will not be ironclad unless we know exactly what 
happened and why it happened, and then we take a series of steps to 
prevent it from happening. We should be very clear with the Russian 
Federation that if they do this again, they will be sanctioned, and 
there will be a consequence in response to their actions. We won't be 
able to do any of that unless we find the answers.
  Here are a couple of basic questions I hope would be a part of the 
deliberations, not just of the two committees or other committees that 
might review this but also the deliberations and work of the special 
counsel and his team.
  The first question is, Why does the President believe that the 
Russian election interference investigation is baseless, which is 
contrary to the unanimous finding of 17 U.S. intelligence agencies? 
These agencies issued a ``high confidence'' assessment of the 
determination they made. That is a technical term in the intelligence 
circles that they don't use lightly.
  Based upon the findings of those intelligence agencies and that 
finding being of high confidence, why does the President continue to 
question or even undermine that determination?
  Question No. 2 is, Why did Attorney General Sessions, who had to 
recuse himself from the Russian investigation, weigh in on the firing 
of the FBI Director responsible for that very investigation? That is a 
question, I think, a number of people are asking.
  Question No. 3 is, Can the Justice Department's political leaders--
individuals who have just come in with this administration and 
officials in the Justice Department--be trusted not to interfere in the 
ongoing FBI investigation? That is a question.
  Question No. 4 is, Why, immediately after firing Director Comey and 
amid the uproar about interference in the Russian investigation that it 
created, did the President convene a private meeting with the Russian 
Foreign Minister and the Russian Ambassador in the Oval Office and 
allow the Russian state media--the Soviet-era state media entity--to 
cover that meeting while keeping out the U.S. media? I think that is a 
question that a lot of people have.
  Question No. 5 is, Why did the President reveal highly classified 
information to the Russian Federation, according to the reporting by 
the Washington Post and others, during this meeting with the Russian 
Foreign Minister and the Russian Ambassador, and what are the 
implications of that disclosure? That is something that we need to have 
answers to.
  At least these five questions--you could add many more--are 
critically important questions. In some respects, there are even more 
urgent questions in front of us, and I will focus a little bit on those 
today--basically, three, I guess.
  No. 1, did the President intentionally interfere with the ongoing FBI 
investigation into his associates, people that were on his campaign or 
on the campaign or working in the government now? The interference 
question

[[Page S3039]]

seems more likely than not based upon the reporting, but we have to 
know for sure, one way or the other: Did the President intentionally 
interfere with an ongoing FBI investigation?
  No. 2, are any such efforts to interfere ongoing?
  If the answer to the first question is yes--and we don't know for 
certain if it is question yes, but if it is yes--if there was 
intentional interference with the investigation by the President, the 
second question would be, Are there any such efforts to interfere that 
are ongoing?
  No. 3, do they extend--meaning this potential alleged interference--
past the FBI inquiry, to the investigations in the Senate and the House 
of Representatives? I think that is a question that is rather urgent as 
well.
  Will this attempt to interfere, or alleged attempt to interfere, 
carry over into other investigations?
  In essence now, we have three inquiries. One is the House 
Intelligence Committee, the other is the Senate Intelligence Committee, 
and the third would be Special Counsel Mueller's investigation. They 
are all critically important.
  I would hope that we could add a fourth to that, which would be an 
independent commission, like the 9/11 Commission, where we came to 
definitive conclusions with regard to what happened on 9/11. Then, 
added to those conclusions, there were a series of recommendations so 
that we could prevent another 9/11. The same could be said here--that 
we want to make sure we get answers to these questions, have 
conclusions made, have accountability with regard to those conclusions, 
but then have a series of recommendations about how to prevent Russian 
interference or the interference of any foreign adversary in our 
election ever again.
  Director Comey himself warned about the danger of undue influence on 
FBI investigations in an exchange during a May 3 Senate Judiciary 
Committee hearing. In this case, it was Senator Hirono, a Democratic 
Senator from Hawaii, who asked if the Attorney General or senior 
Justice Department officials had ever ordered the FBI to halt an 
investigation.
  Interestingly, here is what Director Comey replied to that question: 
``Not in my experience,'' meaning not in his experience does he know of 
an instance where the Justice Department officials interfered with an 
FBI investigation.
  I will read it again.

       Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to 
     tell the FBI to stop doing something.

  Then, he continues on, and it picks up with this:

       [W]ithout an appropriate purpose. . . . a situation where 
     we were told to stop something for a political reason, that 
     would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience.

  That is the now former FBI Director saying that there is no 
precedence for the idea that the Justice Department would ask the FBI 
to take an action, which would be interference.
  Director Comey was talking about the Department of Justice in this 
case--actions by the Department of Justice to interfere with an FBI 
investigation. In retrospect, perhaps a better question would have been 
whether the political interference he thought would be a ``very big 
deal'' might have been coming directly from the Oval Office. It is 
essential that we get to the bottom of this--a number of these 
questions.
  An issue of this importance requires that the full investigative 
power of the Federal Government be brought to bear. The House and 
Senate Intel Committees are doing their investigation, as I said. The 
FBI investigation continues as well, despite concerns about 
independence in the wake of Director Comey's firing.
  I hope, and I expect, that the next FBI Director will be someone who 
will be as independent, as capable, and as committed as Director 
Mueller is as the new special counsel.
  We know there are dedicated professionals running these 
investigations. It has long been my belief that these extraordinary 
circumstances demand even more. I have been repeating for some time 
that we need a greater level of independence to insulate this 
critically important investigation from any suspicion of partisan 
interference. That is why I have been calling--for many weeks now, 
since early March--for a special counsel. I am glad the Justice 
Department now agrees with me.
  Suffice it to say that we have a lot more work to do. Ultimately, 
this will be the work of everyone here, even if you are not a member of 
the Intel Committee or any other committee that is doing work that is 
directly relevant to this because, ultimately, the Congress has to take 
actions to get to the bottom of these questions but also be part of the 
process, at least, of imposing accountability and, also, especially the 
Congress is going to have to play a major role--the leading role--in 
making sure we put in place policies and procedures and laws that 
prevent this from ever happening again.

  I hope the administration will join us in taking every step necessary 
to get to the bottom of these questions and to insist and to ensure 
that this never happens again to any American election. That is not 
just a goal, that has to be a guarantee as a result of this process. If 
the administration is not committed to that, I am not sure what they 
are committed to.
  To take lightly or to ignore a problem that is this great and this 
serious, to undermine our democracy is, I think, to put at risk the 
very foundation of our Nation as a nation of laws and not of men, a 
nation that is committed to the rule of law.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________