[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 5 (Tuesday, January 9, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S95-S100]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Safeguarding OUr Elections

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, 2018 is going to be an election year. 
In just 10 months, Americans will go to the polls to exercise their 
franchise, believing in the integrity of our democratic process. I am 
here today to discuss a threat to the integrity of that process, which 
is getting little attention here in Congress--nothing near what it 
deserves. We really ought to be acting with some expedition to 
safeguard our elections this November. Yet, instead, the effort is one 
of chasing down partisan investigative rabbit holes.
  What ought to be our job? Well, national security, intelligence, 
election, and law enforcement officials, many of them testifying before 
us here in Congress, have made what our job is very clear. We must 
counter Russia's well-established election interference playbook. 
Russia will hack. Russia will bully. Russia will propagandize. Perhaps 
more insidiously, Russia will seek to corrupt, particularly by 
exploiting cracks in our incorporation and campaign finance laws. We 
are warned: Russia will seek to interfere in 2018's election.
  I ask unanimous consent that an article entitled ``CIA's Pompeo says 
Russia and others trying to undermine U.S. elections'' be printed in 
the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  To quote the Center for Strategic and International Studies' Heather 
Conley, testifying before Congress last spring, corruption is the 
``lubricant'' for Moscow's election interference, so ``the battle of 
Western democracies to defeat corruption'' must be seen as ``a matter 
of national security.''
  Testifying before our Crime and Terrorism Subcommittee, former 
Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, agreed, saying of 
Russia's 2016 election meddling:

       I believe [the Russians] are now emboldened to continue 
     such activities in the future, both here and around world, 
     and to do so even more intensely. If there has ever been a 
     clarion call for vigilance and action against a threat to the 
     very foundation of our democratic political system, this 
     episode is it. I hope the American people recognize the 
     severity of this threat and that we collectively counter it 
     before it further erodes the fabric of our democracy.

  How to counter it? Well, there are two important solutions that 
witnesses have identified in recent testimony before the Judiciary and 
other committees here in the Senate.
  First, guard against the use of phony shell corporations as 
facilitators of corruption. Ms. Conley, as I said, wrote that 
corruption is the ``lubricant'' with which the Russians operate their 
interference schemes. She and her colleagues warn that to fight the 
corruption that gives Russia this channel of influence--and I quote her 
here--``enhancing transparency and the effectiveness of the Western 
democratic tools, instruments, and institutions is critical.'' One 
central way to cut off this channel of improper influence would be to 
require companies to disclose who their real owner is so that Russian 
influence can no longer hide behind anonymous American shell companies.
  Another would be to crack down on the dark money that is flooding 
into American elections. It is illegal for foreign nationals to spend 
money or participate at all in American elections. Yet, post-Citizens 
United, the same dark money avenues that allow domestic election 
interference--for instance, that the Koch brothers use to manipulate 
American elections--are right out there to be used by Vladimir Putin. 
If they can hide their identity behind 501(c)(4)s and other dark money 
channels, so can operatives for the Russians.
  Instead of taking up these important measures or even ensuring a 
thorough investigation into the 2016 election meddling, we are--to 
paraphrase the legendary Senator Sam Ervin of Watergate fame--chasing 
rabbits when we should be on a bear hunt.
  Let's look at a few rabbits that have distracted us from the task at 
hand. Remember, when Michael Flynn, the President's former National 
Security Adviser, illicitly communicated with the Russian Ambassador 
about sanctions during the transition. Then in the White House, he lied 
to the FBI about it, which concerned the Justice Department so badly 
that the Acting Attorney General warned the White House Counsel 
personally, after which she was fired, but the President then

[[Page S96]]

waited 18 days until all of this had become public in the media to ask 
for Michael Flynn's resignation. Out of all of that, the topic for many 
Republicans was the alleged leaks of classified information that 
allowed the story to come to light--not the story itself of problems at 
the highest level of our national security establishment. Off people 
went after the ``leaks'' rabbit.
  Republicans then pivoted to talking about the ``unmasking''--remember 
that word; we heard a lot of it around here--of identities in 
intelligence reporting and the purported misconduct of Obama 
administration officials. Trump even publicly suggested that former 
National Security Adviser Susan Rice may have committed a crime. So off 
people went after the ``unmasking'' rabbit.
  Next, the President accused President Obama of wiretapping Trump 
Tower, an allegation so outrageous that even congressional Republicans 
have refused to stand by it, but my, what a bright and shiny rabbit it 
was for the weeks that it was still a distraction.
  By the spring and summer, Republicans were railing against purported 
conflicts of interest by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, a 
distinguished career public servant.
  I ask unanimous consent that this article, ``FBI ruled McCabe had no 
conflict of interest in Clinton probe,'' be printed in the Record at 
the conclusion of my remarks.
  So off everybody went after the ``McCabe's wife'' rabbit.
  After President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey to impede the 
Russia investigation and then told the Russian Foreign Minister and NBC 
that was why he had done it, the President launched another leak 
rabbit: a coordinated effort with his lawyers, congressional 
Republicans, and the rightwing media to suggest that Comey had leaked 
classified information by sharing with a friend his own contemporaneous 
notes of conversations with Trump.
  Just last week, the President again suggested on Twitter that Comey 
should be charged with a crime--another bite at the ``leaks'' rabbit.
  In early July, we learned of the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower 
between Russian lawyer and operative Natalia Veselnitskaya and senior 
Trump campaign leaders seeking dirt on Hillary Clinton. Republicans 
tried to distract attention from that mess by suggesting that 
Veselnitskaya was in the country on a visa issued by Obama 
administration officials, with some rightwing media--aided by some 
congressional Republicans--even whipping on the ``visa'' rabbit by 
suggesting there was a setup orchestrated by the Obama administration 
against the Trump campaign.
  Then came the ``Fusion'' rabbit. Because Fusion GPS had worked on 
separate projects--one with Christopher Steele and a separate one with 
Natalia Veselnitskaya--some Republicans began suggesting either that 
Russia had been Fusion's client for the Steele dossier or that Steele 
was the unwitting victim of a Russian disinformation campaign.
  Then there is the ``Uranium One'' rabbit, which began when a 
rightwing author suggested, without evidence, that Hillary Clinton may 
have been responsible for a Russian state company acquiring uranium 
mines in the United States. This rabbit remains a topic of 
investigation in Congress and in rightwing media.
  Then there are the attacks on Bob Mueller, which, like rabbits, 
multiply by the hour. As the special counsel's investigation started 
heating up over the late summer and fall, the rightwing began 
investigating the investigation--alleged conflicts of interest, history 
of campaign donations, inappropriate text messages, questions about 
spouses' employment. But the big one was that the FBI was corruptly 
involved in the procurement of the Steele dossier and that this had 
launched the ``witch hunt.'' This, of course, is a very shiny rabbit.
  However, a week ago, reporting by the New York Times confirmed that 
the FBI did not begin its investigation into Donald Trump's connections 
to Russia because of the so-called Steele dossier. This should not come 
as a surprise. We have already been told that U.S. allies warned 
American national security officials about Russian interference in our 
2016 elections.
  In response to a question from Ranking Member Feinstein at our Crime 
and Terrorism Subcommittee hearing on May 8, former Director of 
National Intelligence James Clapper confirmed that ``Britain's 
intelligence service''--Britain's intelligence service--``first became 
aware in late 2015 of suspicious interactions between Trump advisers 
and Russian intelligence agents,'' and the Brits passed that 
information on to U.S. intelligence agencies. Clapper confirmed that in 
``the spring of 2016, multiple European allies passed on additional 
information to the United States about contacts between the Trump 
campaign and Russians.'' Clapper said that these reports were accurate 
and that ``the specifics are quite sensitive.''
  Now we have learned that Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George 
Papadopoulos, who pled guilty last year to lying to the FBI, apparently 
told a senior Australian official in the spring of 2016 that Russia had 
dirt on Hillary Clinton. This is something he said he had been told by 
an intermediary for the Russians. When hacked emails started showing up 
that summer, Australia's Government became sufficiently concerned to 
let U.S. officials know about what they had learned from Papadopoulos.
  So you have the British intelligence community warnings, the European 
intelligence community warnings, the Australian warnings, and Carter 
Page's travels to Russia. You have the attribution of the DNC hack, the 
intrusion into those emails, to Russian hackers. You have the leaking 
of the stolen emails. You have abundant evidence out of all of that for 
the FBI that the Trump campaign's links to Russia required further 
investigation. It would have been a complete failure of their duty to 
not have looked further based on all of that evidence.
  That is not to say that Christopher Steele and his work are not taken 
seriously by U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials. U.S. 
security agencies have relied on Steele's analysis long before any 
dossier appeared. Steele is a leading Russia expert. Beginning in 1990, 
as an undercover officer in Moscow, he watched the Soviet Union 
unravel. He observed Russia's current leaders ascend through the 
Russian security services during the 1990s and 2000s. He rose to a 
senior position on MI6's Russia desk in London. Since leaving MI6, his 
reports on Russia and Ukraine have been shared widely within the U.S. 
Government as credible reporting. A U.S. official told the Guardian 
that Steele's reports were ``consistently reliable, meticulous, and 
well-informed.''
  But you would never know this from listening to congressional 
Republicans. They have been repeating, in chorus with the White House 
and conservative media, the disproven claim that the Russians somehow 
commissioned the Steele dossier or that Steele somehow got suckered by 
the Russians or that some deep-state FBI set up the whole thing to 
pressure Trump. They have pushed to discredit Steele. They have pushed 
to discredit Fusion.

  As one example, rewind to the Judiciary Committee's hearing on the 
Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, last July. On the morning of 
the second day of that hearing, the President tweeted: ``One of the 
things that has been lost in the politics of this situation is that the 
Russians collected and spread negative information about then candidate 
Trump.'' This is Trump tweeting about himself. His tweet came shortly 
after a segment on FOX News centered on the same question. Other 
rightwing outlets parroted the same message.
  That same day, Republicans in Congress spun out the same premise that 
Russians paid for the dossier and that the dossier was, to use their 
word, the ``genesis'' of the FBI's inquiry. I hope we have made it 
clear that this was not the genesis.
  While the FARA hearing was still going on, that same day, the gop.gov 
website published this post:

       [W]e now know a Russian backed, Democrat connected research 
     firm, with a history of smearing individuals and pitching 
     fake information to reporters, was hired by opponents of 
     President Trump to compile a ``dossier'' of supposed Trump 
     ties to Russia.
       The information that was compiled was taken seriously by 
     the highest level of our intelligence community along with 
     our media, despite obvious signs that the firm behind it was 
     tied to Russia.

[[Page S97]]

       As a reminder, this phony ``dossier'' helped spark the 
     investigation now led by Special Counsel Mueller.

  That is the rabbit we are chasing now.
  The uniformity of the rightwing message that day with the White House 
was telling, but the message--the content of it--is simply not true. In 
fact, at that hearing, the witness denied any knowledge of any link 
between Russians and the clients of the Steele dossier.
  In the months that followed, Fusion GPS's founder, Glenn Simpson, 
spent over 20 hours speaking with congressional investigators, 
including investigators from the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  I ask unanimous consent that his op-ed be printed in the Record as a 
third and final item at the conclusion of my remarks.
  During these interviews, he specifically told Democratic and 
Republican staff alike that the dossier was taken seriously by the FBI 
because it corroborated reports the Bureau had already received from 
other sources--remember the British, the European, the Australian we 
have talked about--and a source inside the Trump campaign. From the 
Time's recent reporting, we can conclude that that source was George 
Papadopoulos. This has all been known for months, but the narrative 
about Fusion GPS and the FBI grinds on, unhinged from fact.
  The revelation about George Papadopoulos and the Australian 
Government should serve as a clarifying moment about the rightwing 
effort to undermine Bob Mueller's investigation of the ties of the 
Trump campaign and his Presidency to Russia. The FBI investigation did 
not begin because of opposition research. It did not begin because 
researchers or journalists or American national security officials fell 
victim to Russian disinformation. It did not begin because of fake news 
or because Democrats needed an explanation for losing an election. It 
began when multiple allies, friends of the United States, warned us 
that the Russian Government was interfering in our democratic process--
something many of them knew about from Russia's interference in their 
own democratic process.
  We still do not know to what extent that interference may have been 
facilitated or even simply known to members of the Trump campaign or 
other Trump associates. We still have done nothing to prevent further 
interference in our elections in 2018. The special counsel's 
investigation and the investigations going on in Congress must be 
allowed to continue until all of the facts are known.
  Here in the Senate, we should stop looking for new distractions, stop 
chasing rabbits, and start thinking about how we are going to protect 
our future elections--our 2018 election--against a repeat performance, 
which we have been warned about, by the Russians or another foreign 
adversary, for that matter.
  As the Center for Strategic and International Studies warns in its 
report, ``The Kremlin Playbook,'' we must fight the avenues for 
corruption that give Russia influence. We must ``enhanc[e] 
transparency'' in government and build ``resilience against Russian 
influence'' in our elections and elsewhere in American society.
  I will conclude by saying that the best measure of our success in 
Congress will be an America defended against foreign election 
interference in time to protect our 2018 elections. If we have not 
achieved that, we have failed at our duty. I do not see us presently on 
a path to meet that goal. We are less than a year out from election 
day. We have work to do. Enough with the rabbits.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 CIA's Pompeo Says Russia and Others Trying To Undermine U.S. Elections

                          (By Susan Cornwell)

       Washington (Reuters).--The head of the Central Intelligence 
     Agency said on Sunday that Russia and others are trying to 
     undermine elections in the United States, the next major one 
     being in November when Republicans will try to keep control 
     of Congress.
       U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia 
     interfered in the 2016 presidential election to try to help 
     President Donald Trump win, in part by hacking and releasing 
     emails embarrassing to Democratic presidential candidate 
     Hillary Clinton, and spreading social media propaganda.
       CIA Director Mike Pompeo told CBS that the Russian 
     interference is longstanding, and continues. Asked on ``Face 
     the Nation'' if Moscow is currently trying to undermine U.S. 
     elections, Pompeo responded: ``Yes sir, have been for 
     decades.''
       ``Yes, I continue to be concerned, not only about the 
     Russians, but about others' efforts as well,'' Pompeo said, 
     without giving details. ``We have many foes who want to 
     undermine Western democracy.''
       Moscow denies any meddling in the 2016 elections to help 
     Republican Trump win. U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller is 
     investigating whether any crimes were committed. Two Trump 
     associates, former national security adviser Michael Flynn 
     and campaign aide George Papadopoulos have pleaded guilty to 
     lying to FBI agents in the probe. Trump denies any campaign 
     collusion with Russia.
       Trump has at times suggested that he accepts the U.S. 
     intelligence agencies' assessment that Russia sought to 
     interfere in the election but at other times has said he 
     accepts Russian President Vladimir Putin's denials that 
     Moscow meddled.
       Trump has frequently spoken of wanting to improve relations 
     with Putin, even though Russia has frustrated U.S. policy in 
     Syria and Ukraine and done little to help Washington in its 
     standoff with North Korea.
       Pompeo told CBS that the CIA had an important function as a 
     part of the national security team to keep U.S. elections 
     secure and democratic. ``We are working diligently to do 
     that. So we're going to work against the Russians or any 
     others who threaten that very outcome,'' he said.
       Trump said on Saturday that he planned an active year on 
     the campaign trail on behalf of Republican candidates running 
     in the mid-term elections, in which all of the House of 
     Representatives and one-third of the Senate will be up for 
     election. Republicans hold majorities in both.
                                  ____


                     [From The Hill, Jan. 5, 2018]

  FBI Ruled McCabe Had No Conflict of Interest in Clinton Probe: Docs

                         (By Julia Manchester)

       The FBI said in documents released Friday that Deputy 
     Director Andrew McCabe did not have any role in the probe 
     into Hillary Clinton's private email server while his wife 
     ran as a Democrat for state office in Virginia.
       The documents note that Jill McCabe announced her candidacy 
     for state Senate in Virginia in March 2015, while Andrew 
     McCabe's role as deputy director started in February 2016, 
     three months after his wife lost her electoral bid.
       Andrew McCabe had asked ethics officials if his wife's 
     candidacy would lead to a potential conflict of interest 
     while he was working as an assistant director at the FBI 
     Field Office in Washington, D.C., the documents show.
       ``From the first contemplation that his wife would run for 
     office in Virginia, [McCabe] sought out and consulted with 
     ethics officers, which included briefings on the Hatch Act,'' 
     the records state.
       A ``system of recusal'' was also put in place to prevent 
     any potential conflicts of interests, according to the 
     documents.
       The release of the documents comes after President Trump 
     and other Republicans have claimed McCabe had a conflict of 
     interest due to his wife's electoral bid, noting that her 
     campaign was supported by a super-PAC associated to Virginia 
     Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D), a Clinton ally.
       ``How can FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the man in 
     charge, along with leakin' James Comey, of the Phony Hillary 
     Clinton investigation (including her 33,000 illegally deleted 
     emails) be given $700,000 for wife's campaign by Clinton 
     Puppets during investigation?'' Trump tweeted last month:

       ``How can FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the man in 
     charge, along with leakin' James Comey of the Phony Hillary 
     Clinton investigation (including her 33,000 illegally deleted 
     emails) be given $700,000 for wife's campaign by Clinton 
     Puppets during investigation?'' 3:27 PM-Dec. 23, 2017

       Trump's tweet and others he sent targeting the No. 2 FBI 
     official amid the federal Russia probe came after it was 
     revealed McCabe would be retiring from his post in the coming 
     months.
       Trump interviewed McCabe to be FBI director in May after he 
     fired James Comey from the top post. The president ultimately 
     tapped Christopher Wray for the bureau's top spot.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Jan. 2, 2018]

                  The Republicans' Fake Investigations

                (By Glenn R. Simpson and Peter Fritsch)

       A generation ago, Republicans sought to protect President 
     Richard Nixon by urging the Senate Watergate committee to 
     look at supposed wrongdoing by Democrats in previous 
     elections. The committee chairman, Sam Ervin, a Democrat, 
     said that would be ``as foolish as the man who went bear 
     hunting and stopped to chase rabbits.''
       Today, amid a growing criminal inquiry into Russian 
     meddling in the 2016 election, congressional Republicans are 
     again chasing rabbits. We know because we're their favorite 
     quarry.
       In the year since the publication of the so-called Steele 
     dossier--the collection of intelligence reports we 
     commissioned about Donald Trump's ties to Russia--the 
     president

[[Page S98]]

     has repeatedly attacked us on Twitter. His allies in Congress 
     have dug through our bank records and sought to tarnish our 
     firm to punish us for highlighting his links to Russia. 
     Conservative news outlets and even our former employer, The 
     Wall Street Journal, have spun a succession of mendacious 
     conspiracy theories about our motives and backers.
       We are happy to correct the record. In fact, we already 
     have.
       Three congressional committees have heard over 21 hours of 
     testimony from our firm, Fusion GPS. In those sessions, we 
     toppled the far right's conspiracy theories and explained how 
     The Washington Free Beacon and the Clinton campaign--the 
     Republican and Democratic funders of our Trump research--
     separately came to hire us in the first place.
       We walked investigators through our yearlong effort to 
     decipher Mr. Trump's complex business past, of which the 
     Steele dossier is but one chapter. And we handed over our 
     relevant bank records--while drawing the line at a fishing 
     expedition for the records of companies we work for that have 
     nothing to do with the Trump case.
       Republicans have refused to release full transcripts of our 
     firm's testimony, even as they selectively leak details to 
     media outlets on the far right. It's time to share what our 
     company told investigators.
       We don't believe the Steele dossier was the trigger for the 
     F.B.I.'s investigation into Russian meddling. As we told the 
     Senate Judiciary Committee in August, our sources said the 
     dossier was taken so seriously because it corroborated 
     reports the bureau had received from other sources, including 
     one inside the Trump camp.
       The intelligence committees have known for months that 
     credible allegations of collusion between the Trump camp and 
     Russia were pouring in from independent sources during the 
     campaign. Yet lawmakers in the thrall of the president 
     continue to wage a cynical campaign to portray us as the 
     unwitting victims of Kremlin disinformation.
       We suggested investigators look into the bank records of 
     Deutsche Bank and others that were funding Mr. Trump's 
     businesses. Congress appears uninterested in that tip: 
     Reportedly, ours are the only bank records the House 
     Intelligence Committee has subpoenaed.
       We told Congress that from Manhattan to Sunny Isles Beach, 
     Fla., and from Toronto to Panama, we found widespread 
     evidence that Mr. Trump and his organization had worked with 
     a wide array of dubious Russians in arrangements that often 
     raised questions about money laundering. Likewise, those 
     deals don't seem to interest Congress.
       We explained how, from our past journalistic work in 
     Europe, we were deeply familiar with the political operative 
     Paul Manafort's coziness with Moscow and his financial ties 
     to Russian oligarchs close to Vladimir Putin.
       Finally, we debunked the biggest canard being pushed by the 
     president's men--the notion that we somehow knew of the June 
     9, 2016, meeting in Trump Tower between some Russians and the 
     Trump brain trust. We first learned of that meeting from news 
     reports last year--and the committees know it. They also know 
     that these Russians were unaware of the former British 
     intelligence officer Christopher Steele's work for us and 
     were not sources for his reports.
       Yes, we hired Mr. Steele, a highly respected Russia expert. 
     But we did so without informing him whom we were working for 
     and gave him no specific marching orders beyond this basic 
     question: Why did Mr. Trump repeatedly seek to do deals in a 
     notoriously corrupt police state that most serious investors 
     shun?
       What came back shocked us. Mr. Steele's sources in Russia 
     (who were not paid) reported on an extensive--and now 
     confirmed--effort by the Kremlin to help elect Mr. Trump 
     president. Mr. Steele saw this as a crime in progress and 
     decided he needed to report it to the F.B.I.
       We did not discuss that decision with our clients, or 
     anyone else. Instead, we deferred to Mr. Steele, a trusted 
     friend and intelligence professional with a long history of 
     working with law enforcement. We did not speak to the F.B.I. 
     and haven't since.
       After the election, Mr. Steele decided to share his 
     intelligence with Senator John McCain via an emissary. We 
     helped him do that. The goal was to alert the United States 
     national security community to an attack on our country by a 
     hostile foreign power. We did not, however, share the dossier 
     with BuzzFeed, which to our dismay published it last January.
       We're extremely proud of our work to highlight Mr. Trump's 
     Russia ties. To have done so is our right under the First 
     Amendment.
       In is time to stop chasing rabbits. The public still has 
     much to learn about a man with the most troubling business 
     past of any United States president. Congress should release 
     transcripts of our firm's testimony, so that the American 
     people can learn the truth about our work and most important, 
     what happened to our democracy.

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I now yield, per the pending agreement, to my 
distinguished friend from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I thank my colleague Senator Whitehouse for his very erudite and 
insightful summary of the bright, shiny toys and rabbits and rabbit 
holes that a number of our colleagues have attempted to use to distract 
the Judiciary Committee and this body from what should be its quest for 
the truth; that is, the truth about the Russian attack on our democracy 
during the last election and potential collusion in that attack--
specifically, collusion by the Trump campaign--and obstruction of 
justice. Indeed, obstruction of justice is within the direct purview of 
the Judiciary Committee.
  I want to thank my colleague Senator Whitehouse for joining me in a 
letter that we wrote to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
Senator Grassley, asking that he very simply make public the transcript 
of the interview with Glenn Simpson conducted by our staff. Senator 
Grassley declined. But, earlier today, Senator Feinstein released the 
interview, advancing the American people's right and need to know the 
full truth.
  I want to applaud Senator Feinstein's leadership in using her proper 
authority as the ranking member to serve this vital public interest. I 
am grateful to her for her courage and strength in moving forward and 
disclosing the transcript to prevent its use as a dangerous distraction 
from the critical work of our committee. I want to thank at least one 
of our colleagues across the aisle, Senator Cornyn, for apparently 
supporting that step.
  The toys and rabbits and rabbit holes are hardly new to efforts by 
defenders of an administration against an investigation, and perhaps 
for some amusement as well as enlightenment, I want to cite a satiric 
column done by Art Buchwald in 1973.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the column be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                Here Are Handy Excuses for Nixon Backers

                           (By Art Buchwald)

       Washington.--These are difficult times for people who are 
     defending the Nixon administration. No matter where they go 
     they are attacked by pseudo-liberals, McGovern lovers, 
     heterosexual constitutionalists and paranoid John Dean 
     believers.
       As a public service, I am printing instant responses for 
     loyal Nixonites when they are attacked at a party. Please cut 
     it out and carry it in your pocket.
       1--Everyone does it.
       2--What about Chappaquiddick?
       3--A President can't keep track of everything his staff 
     does.
       4--The press is blowing the whole thing up.
       5--Whatever Nixon did was for national security.
       6--The Democrats are sore because they lost the election.
       7--Are you going to believe a rat like John Dean or the 
     President of the United States?
       8--Wait till all the facts come out.
       9--What about Chappaquiddick?
       10--If you impeach Nixon, you get Agnew.
       11--The only thing wrong with Watergate is they got caught.
       12--What about Daniel Ellsberg stealing the Pentagon 
     Papers?
       13--It happens in Europe all the time.
       14--People would be against Nixon no matter what he did.
       15--I'd rather have a crook in the White House than a fool.
       16--L.B.J. used to read FBI reports every night.
       17--What's the big deal about finding out what your 
     opposition is up to?
       18--The President was too busy running the country to know 
     what was going on.
       19--What about Chappaquiddick?
       20--People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
       21--McGovern would have lost anyway.
       22--Maybe the Committee for the Re-Election of the 
     President went a little too far, but they were just a bunch 
     of eager kids.
       23--I'm not for breaking the law, but sometimes you have to 
     do it to save the country.
       24--Nixon made a mistake. He's only human.
       25--Do you realize what Watergate is doing to the dollar 
     abroad?
       26--What about Harry Truman and the deep freeze scandal?
       27--Franklin D. Roosevelt did a lot worse things.
       28--I'm sick and tired of hearing about Watergate and so is 
     everybody else.
       29--This thing should be tried in the courts and not on 
     television.
       30--When Nixon gives his explanation of what happened there 
     are going to be a lot of people in this country with egg on 
     their faces.
       31--My country right or wrong.
       32--What about Chappaquiddick?
       33--I think the people who make all this fuss about 
     Watergate should be shot.
       34--If the Democrats had the money they would have done the 
     same thing.
       35--I never trusted Haldeman and Ehrlichman to start with.

[[Page S99]]

       36--If you say one more word about Watergate I'll punch you 
     in the nose.
       A--If the person is bigger than you: ``If you say one more 
     word about Watergate I'm leaving this house.''
       B--If it's your own house and the person is bigger than 
     you: ``What about Chappaquiddick?

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. Buchwald wrote a satirical list of tactics 
Republicans were using to keep Americans from focusing on the Watergate 
scandal. The list is eerily familiar. The tactics being employed by the 
Trump supporters today ring of those same tactics used in Watergate. 
Buchwald suggests focusing on accusations made against prominent 
Democrats or individuals who had accused Richard Nixon of wrongdoing. 
He suggests attacking the media. He suggests saying: ``The Democrats 
are sore because they lost.'' He suggests deflecting blame to a ``bunch 
of eager kids''--perhaps sounding like the reference to ``coffee boys'' 
today--and saying that this investigation is ``bad for the dollar,'' 
much like bad for America abroad.
  I am very confident--and I want to emphasize this point very 
emphatically--that the special counsel will be in no way distracted 
from his investigation and his team will be undeterred by these 
tactics. But the American people should not be distracted or deterred 
either and, equally important, the Judiciary Committee, the U.S. 
Senate, and the Congress as a whole has a duty here that is, in fact, 
vulnerable to that same distraction. We must persevere.
  What our Republican colleagues are doing at this point is indicated 
by a recent New York Times article. The article describes President 
Trump's efforts to persuade congressional allies to drop their 
investigations, and it says:

       Another Republican Senator said Mr. Trump had not urged him 
     to help bring the Russia inquiry to a halt. Instead, the 
     Senator said, the President nudged him to begin an 
     investigation into Hillary Clinton's connection with the 
     intelligence-gathering firm Fusion GPS, which produced a 
     dossier of allegations about Mr. Trump's ties to Moscow.

  The goal was to stop the investigation of Russian meddling, but the 
implication in the article is that the President knew he could achieve 
that goal as effectively, or at least more practically, by distracting 
from those investigations, diverting resources to other issues, and 
muddying the waters for the American people. That is the playbook from 
1973 that is referenced by Art Buchwald in his 1973 column.
  Here is the danger: Distractions are dangerous, and efforts to 
discredit law enforcement are equally perilous. Those efforts have 
included not only the urging for an investigation of Uranium One and 
Fusion GPS but also attacks on the integrity of some members of the FBI 
and the FBI as a whole and attacks on individual members of the special 
counsel's team, on the team as a whole, and on Robert Mueller himself. 
The effort plainly is to discredit the investigation before it reaches 
a potentially incriminating conclusion and to stop the investigation, 
but if not stop it, at least to demean its credibility before charges 
are brought.
  It is standard operating procedure. We know as prosecutors. The 
distinguished Senator from Rhode Island and I served as U.S. attorneys 
and then attorneys general for our States. We know going into the 
courtroom that we can expect to be attacked and that our teams can be 
expected to be attacked. That is what defense lawyers do. That is what 
they do because they hope to demean and discredit and dismantle the 
credibility of prosecutors before the jury in the courtroom. Here, the 
courtroom is not a court of law but the court of public opinion. Our 
Republican friends have launched that preemptive strike, methodically 
and meticulously, just as the special counsel is engaging in his 
investigation methodically and meticulously.
  Now, I referred to Republican colleagues, and I believe strongly and 
passionately that many, if not most, of our Republican colleagues share 
our zeal for the rule of law and for a just outcome to this 
investigation. The reason is very simple. The Russian attack on our 
democracy imperils not just this administration and not just one 
election. It imperils our democracy as a whole. The meddling in our 
elections was perhaps done to advance the Trump candidacy in 2016, but 
it can be used against the Trump candidacy in 2020. It can be used 
against another Republican candidate in that year. It could be used in 
2018 against other candidates for Congress or for State election.
  My Republican colleagues have been as eloquent as any of us in 
defining that threat because there is no doubt in the intelligence 
community that it is a threat, that the Russians did interfere, and 
that they sought to advance the Trump candidacy. Whether there was an 
impact and what the impact was may never be known, but the effort is 
clear. It involved a massive campaign of disinformation, propaganda, 
cyber attack, and other means. That is what the FBI learned was 
happening, not as a result of Christopher Steele but from sources 
within the Trump campaign, including George Papadopoulos, and from 
other intelligence sources, and that is what we must make sure is known 
to the American public. We must make sure that anyone who aided the 
Russians pays a price and that the Russians themselves pay a price, 
because if there is no price, it will be done with impunity again.
  So there should be--and I believe there is--bipartisan apprehension 
about that threat to our Nation's security. That is the reason that the 
Judiciary Committee's investigation, along with the special counsel, is 
so important, because our purview includes obstruction of justice and 
the integrity of the Department of Justice. Any interference 
politically with the FBI's investigation into Russian meddling must be 
prevented in the future as well. Only the Judiciary Committee can frame 
and craft legislation that will help to protect the FBI.
  Senator Whitehouse and I, and Senator Feinstein and others on the 
committee, will be proposing such legislation based on what we know so 
far. It is legislation that essentially protects the rule of law 
against such efforts to obstruct justice and politically interfere.
  The intelligence community's conclusions about Russian meddling did 
not rely on the credibility of Glenn Simpson or Christopher Steele. The 
two guilty pleas and convictions that the special counsel has already 
secured do not rely on the credibility of Simpson or Steele. Without 
fear of contradiction, I can predict that additional convictions and 
indictments will be based on fact and law, not on the credibility of 
Simpson and Steele. The conclusions reached by Simpson, Steele, or 
anybody else are relevant only insofar as they are supported and backed 
and proved by facts and consistent with relevant law.
  Now, in fact, as we know, Christopher Steele tried to blow the 
whistle on the Russians. He brought to the FBI's attention information 
that he thought was relevant to protecting the United States of America 
against Russian interference. As my colleague Senator Whitehouse has 
outlined in detail, the FBI already knew of it and courteously heard 
from Christopher Steele and later interviewed him.
  The effort to undermine the credibility of the FBI by pointing to 
Christopher Steele completely misses the mark. In fact, I am deeply 
disappointed that the first major action by our Republican colleagues 
on the Judiciary Committee was aimed at someone who reported 
wrongdoing, not committed it, and it was done without any cooperation 
or even consultation with Democratic colleagues. It is really a 
betrayal of the spirit that I think should characterize this very 
serious investigation, because it should be bipartisan.
  My hope is that these distractions, dangerous as they are, will, in 
fact, not divert either our committee or the special counsel. The pace 
of our committee's investigation--again, to be very blunt--has been 
shamefully slow. I hope that its pace will quicken and that it will 
intensify and that there will be hearings in public with witnesses 
under oath and subpoenas of documents. I have said it repeatedly. I 
hope we will use those tools because only by relying on our powers to 
investigate effectively and comprehensively will we protect the goals 
of upholding integrity and justice.
  As for the special counsel and our law enforcement community, I think 
they should know that we support them and that we will protect the 
special counsel against political interference. That is why there is 
legislation I have proposed, along with my

[[Page S100]]

colleague Senator Whitehouse and others. It is bipartisan legislation. 
I thank Senators Tillis and Graham, as well as Senators Coons and 
Booker, for joining in this legislation. That legislation has already 
had a hearing. It should be voted to the floor and passed by the 
Congress so that there is no question that the special counsel will be 
protected against interference or firing.
  As that investigation moves closer to the Oval Office, as it tightens 
its grip on members of the administration, there will be increasing 
threats and efforts to intimidate. The FBI and the Department of 
Justice, as well as the special counsel, have a well-earned reputation 
for integrity and zeal. It is part of our rule of law that a law is 
enforced. Enforcement of a law depends on thorough and independent 
investigations that are pursued without fear or favor, without efforts 
to distract or demean. This body, the U.S. Congress, has an obligation 
to support those kinds of values. They are uniquely American values. 
They are the underpinning of all of our laws, all that we hold dear, 
and all that we celebrate in this body and in this country.
  My hope is that we will be part of the effort to avoid politicizing 
the pursuit of justice. Politicization of the pursuit of justice 
diverts energy and attention away from credible criminal 
investigations. It sends a message to this President and future 
Presidents--and everybody who occupies any office--that there are no 
repercussions for diverting and distracting and for the ploys and 
rabbit holes that may be used to squander resources or undermine 
credibility.
  Republicans and Democrats alike should join in the effort to preserve 
the rule of law. My hope is that we will and will do so without delay 
because every day that passes when these kinds of false, baseless, and 
biased innuendos and rumors are raised and given credence is a day that 
undermines those values that we hold dear.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I thank Senators Whitehouse and Blumenthal 
for their remarks.