[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 72 (Thursday, May 2, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2600-S2602]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Mueller Report
Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to discuss Special
Counsel Robert Mueller's recent report, which is titled ``The Report on
the Investigation into Russia's Interference in the 2016 Presidential
Election.''
The Mueller investigation was authorized to ensure a full and
thorough investigation of the Russian Government's efforts to interfere
in the 2016 Presidential election, as well as any links and/or
coordination between the Russian Government and individuals associated
with the campaign of Donald Trump.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said, when appointing the
special counsel:
[T]he public interest requires me to place this
investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a
degree of independence from the normal chain of command. . .
. I am confident that [Special Counsel Mueller] will follow
the facts, apply the law, and reach a just result.
I encourage all Americans to read the redacted version of the Mueller
report and draw their own conclusions. The report lays out in stark
detail Russia's attack on our country before and during our 2016
elections.
The special counsel rightly concluded that the Russian Government
interfered in the 2016 Presidential election in a sweeping and
systematic fashion.
In January 2018, I issued a report on behalf of the Democrats on the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee titled ``Putin's Asymmetric Assault
on Democracy in Russia, and Europe: Its Implications on U.S. National
Security.'' That report outlines some of the same tactics used by
Russia and Europe that the Mueller report identifies were used in our
2016 elections. Mr. Putin has waged war against democracy.
The Mueller report concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016
Presidential election principally through two operations. First, a
Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored
Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged Presidential
candidate Hillary Clinton; second, a Russian intelligence service
conducted computer intrusion operations against entities, employees,
and volunteers working on the Clinton campaign and then released stolen
documents.
The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian
Government and the Trump campaign. When discussing the Mueller report,
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein recently said: ``There was
overwhelming evidence that Russian operatives hacked American computers
and defrauded American citizens, and that is only the tip of the
iceberg of a comprehensive Russian strategy to influence elections,
promote social discord, and undermine America, just like they do in
many other countries.''
The Director of National Intelligence testified before the Senate in
January that ``even as Russia faces a weakening economy, the Kremlin is
stepping up its campaign to divide Western political and security
institutions and undermine the post-WWII international order. We expect
Russia will continue to wage its information war against democracies
and to use social media to attempt to divide our societies.'' We expect
that Russia will continue to wage its information war against
democracies and to use social media to attempt to divide our societies.
The special counsel fulfilled his mandate to fully investigate both
criminal acts surrounding the 2016 elections, as well as efforts to
obstruct this critical investigation. Let me be clear that President
Trump has consistently taken steps to deny Russia's involvement in
tampering in our elections, resisted efforts to hold Russia
accountable, besmirched the reputation of the special counsel while
trying to dismiss him or willfully impeding his investigation, and
repeatedly attacked the integrity of our intelligence and law
enforcement Agencies. Despite the President's egregious behavior, the
special counsel's work has resulted in dozens of indictments and
numerous convictions and guilty pleas.
Several legal cases and investigations are still ongoing. Let me
remind my colleagues that while the special counsel has delivered its
final report, there are several ongoing Federal investigations and
criminal trials, including those publicly known in the Southern
District of New York and in Washington, DC.
Congress must now fulfill its oversight obligations under the
Constitution. In order to prevent future attacks on our country and
stem abuses of power, we must review a complete copy of the report as
soon as possible and hear direct testimony from Special Counsel
Mueller.
The Mueller report laid out numerous disturbing episodes where
behavior by President Trump may have constituted obstruction of
justice. The report stated:
``If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of
the facts that the President clearly did not commit
obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts
and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to
reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the
President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that
prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal
conduct occurred.''
Indeed, the report stated that ``the President's efforts to influence
the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because
the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders
or accede to his requests.''
Congress should therefore closely examine the President's behavior,
keeping in mind the President's obligations to fully execute the laws
and preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Members of Congress
took an oath as well to support the Constitution before taking office.
The American public now deserves to hear directly from Special Counsel
Robert Mueller through the relevant House and Senate committees.
Congress still has the ability to make a judgment on the obstruction
of justice. Congress must now fulfill its oversight function under the
Constitution and do all we can to prevent future attacks on our country
and to stem abuses of power and corruption.
Congress has an obligation to understand the report fully and respond
in such a way to prevent such attacks from happening in the future.
This should involve prompt and thorough hearings in both the House and
Senate.
Here are some areas where the Senate should consider legislative
action.
First, if an American is approached by a foreign entity about
involvement in an American election, that American should have certain
responsibilities to immediately notify appropriate law enforcement
agencies. I think many of us thought that was probably already the law.
Second, legislation should be considered to protect our elections
from foreign interference by imposing appropriate responsibility on
social media platforms and amending our election
[[Page S2601]]
laws in regard to attribution on advertisements, including through
social media.
Third, the Senate should consider additional sanctions on Russia for
its documented attacks against our 2016 elections.
Congress must continue to take the lead in defending U.S. national
security against continuing Russian aggression against democratic
institutions at home and abroad.
Earlier this year, I joined other Senators in introducing the
Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act of 2019. This
comprehensive legislation seeks to increase economic, political, and
diplomatic pressure on the Russian Federation in response to Russia's
interference in democratic processes abroad, malign influence in Syria,
and aggression against Ukraine.
I am pleased to work with my colleagues on a comprehensive,
bipartisan effort to counter Russia's pervasive attacks on our
electoral systems and cyber infrastructure. I introduced the Election
Systems Integrity Act to better America's election systems so that we
are aware when a foreign national or interest seeks to obtain ownership
or control of election service providers or related infrastructure.
The American people have every reason to be disappointed and alarmed
at the lack of preparedness to defend this Nation. News reports just
last week suggested that former Homeland Security Secretary Nielsen
unsuccessfully tried to elevate the U.S. Government response to the
cyber security threat to the 2020 elections, apparently because
President Trump was not interested in the issue and did not want to
call into further question the legitimacy of his 2016 election victory,
with Russian assistance.
Recently, Jared Kushner inconceivably tried to argue that Russia's
interference amounted to ``a couple of Facebook ads'' and that
congressional and special counsel investigations were ``more harmful''
to the United States than the actual Russian interference.
Congress needs to look very carefully and independently at the 10
episodes that could constitute obstruction of justice by Trump, where
Attorney General Barr ``disagreed with some of the Special Counsel's
legal theories, and felt some of the episodes examined did not amount
to obstruction as a matter of law.''
Remember that President Trump tried to label Special Counsel Muller's
probe as a witch hunt, but Special Counsel Mueller, a well-respected
former FBI Director under both Presidents Bush and Obama, who was
unanimously confirmed by the Senate for the position on two separate
occasions, kept his head down and did his work without fear or favor.
The special counsel's investigation has resulted in, so far, 199
criminal counts, 37 people and entities that have been indicted/charged
as a result of the investigation, 7 guilty pleas, 1 trial conviction,
and 5 people sentenced to prison.
The report is clear that the Trump campaign knew it would benefit
from Russia's illegal activities. ``Several individuals affiliated with
the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their
interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals.'' Mueller's report
states that some corroborating electronic communications were deleted.
One editorial in the Washington Post asked the question: How could
there be obstruction of justice even if there was little evidence to
support the underlying suspicion of Trump campaign coordination with
Russia?
First, Mr. Mueller argued:
``Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to
protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against
investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into
a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury
to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless
of whether a person committed an underlying wrong.''
More specifically, ``the President had a motive to put the FBI's
Russia investigation behind him,'' Mr. Mueller wrote. ``A thorough FBI
investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President
personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or
that would give rise to personal and political concerns.''
I am quoting directly from the Mueller report.
For the record, the President did not fully cooperate with Special
Counsel Mueller's investigation. The President refused to sit for an
interview. He has taken every opportunity to say that this whole
process was a witch hunt. He has done all he can to undermine the
authority of the special counsel, its investigators, its purpose and,
therefore, its results.
As Special Counsel Mueller noted in his final report:
Beginning in December 2017, the [Special Counsel] sought
for more than a year to interview the President on topics
relevant to both Russian-election interference and
obstruction-of-justice . . . we received the President's
written responses . . . we informed counsel of the
insufficiency of those responses in several respects . . .
Recognizing that the President would not be interviewed
voluntarily, we considered whether to issue a subpoena for
his testimony. We viewed the written answers to be
inadequate. But at that point, our investigation had made
significant progress and had produced substantial evidence
for our report. We thus weighed the costs of potentially
lengthy constitutional litigation, with resulting delay in
finishing our investigation. . . .
So there is no question that the President did not cooperate as Mr.
Mueller had requested.
Special Counsel Mueller noted that he declined to ``make a
traditional prosecutorial judgment'' due to its acceptance of the
Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, or OLC, opinion
prohibiting the indictment of a sitting President. The special counsel
stated that while the OLC opinion holds that a sitting President may
not be prosecuted, the OLC opinion ``recognizes that a criminal
investigation during the President's term is permissible. The OLC
opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after
he leaves office. . . . Given those considerations, the facts known to
us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the
criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation
in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and
documents materials were made available.''
That is ending a quote by the special counsel. Mr. Mueller's report
is a clear directive to Congress to move forward with its own
proceedings.
The criminal process at issue here for a sitting President is
completely separate and independent of both the congressional oversight
power and the congressional impeachment power for high crimes and
misdemeanors. Even if the House decides to begin impeachment
proceedings against the President--and it has the sole power to do so--
and even if the Senate were to convict the President--it has the sole
power to do so--the Constitution provides that ``the Party convicted
shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial,
Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law.''
The report emphasizes the President's constitutional obligation to
faithfully execute the laws under article II, section 3 of the
Constitution, and notes that ``the proper supervision of criminal law
does not demand freedom for the President to act with a corrupt
intention of shielding himself from criminal punishment, avoiding
financial liability, or preventing personal embarrassment.''
Congress should take action and convene oversight hearings on the
Mueller report and the underlying evidence. The report states:
Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that
were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement
investigations, including the Russian-interference and
obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried
out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought
to use his official power outside of usual channels.
These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special
Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General's
recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the
scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts
with witnesses with the potential to influence their
testimony. Viewing the acts collectively can help illuminate
their significance.
That is again quoting from the Mueller report.
These are disturbing and troubling actions by the President. Congress
needs to get to the bottom of what happened and lay bare the facts for
all Americans to see.
The report continues:
The President's efforts to influence the investigation were
mostly unsuccessful, but
[[Page S2602]]
that is largely because the persons who surrounded the
President declined to carry out orders or accede to his
requests. Comey did not end the investigation of Flynn, which
ultimately resulted in Flynn's prosecution and conviction for
lying to the FBI. McGahn did not tell Acting Attorney General
Rod Rosenstein that the Special Counsel must be removed, but
was instead prepared to resign over the President's order.
Lewandowski and Dearborn did not deliver the President's
message to Attorney General Sessions that he should confine
the Russia investigation to future election meddling only.
And McGahn refused to recede from his recollection about
events surrounding the President's direction to have the
Special Counsel removed, despite the President's multiple
demands that he do so.
That is again quoting from the Mueller report.
The American people can take little comfort in the fact that the
episodes of potential obstruction of justice would have been much worse
had the President's staff actually followed through on his orders. The
misconduct here emanates from the President himself.
The report notes the marked change in the President's behavior--after
the firing of FBI Director Comey--once the President realized that
``investigators were conducting an obstruction-of-justice inquiry into
his own conduct . . . The President launched public attacks on the
investigation and individuals involved in it who could possess evidence
adverse to the President, while in private, the President engaged in a
series of targeted efforts to control the investigation.
For instance, the President attempted to remove the special counsel.
He sought to have Attorney General Sessions unrecuse himself and limit
the investigation. He sought to prevent public disclosure of
information about the June 9, 2016, meeting between Russians and
campaign officials. And he used public forms to attack potential
witnesses who might offer adverse information and to praise witnesses
who declined to cooperate with the government.
The report continues:
The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws
to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office
accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances
and the principle that no person is above the law. . . . In
sum, contrary to the position taken by the President's
counsel, we concluded that, in light of the Supreme Court
precedent governing separation-of-power issues, we have a
valid basis for investigating the conduct at issue in this
report. In our view, the application of the obstruction
statutes would not impermissibly burden the President's
Article II function to supervise prosecutorial conduct or to
remove inferior law enforcement officers.
The report concludes:
The protection of the criminal justice system from corrupt
acts by any person--including the President--accords with the
fundamental principle of our government that ``no person in
this country is so high that he is above the law.''
They cited U.S. v. Lee, Clinton v. Jones, and U.S. v. Nixon.
Congress, through its oversight powers and constitutional
responsibilities, should closely examine, investigate, and take
testimony on the following episodes and events relating to potential
obstruction of justice by President Trump.
The special counsel examined these episodes in great detail and found
supportive documentary and testimonial evidence that raised significant
concerns about potential wrongdoing in a number of cases, including the
Trump campaign's response to reports about Russia's support for Trump;
conduct involving FBI Director Comey and National Security Advisor
Michael Flynn; the President's reaction to the continuing Russia
investigation; the President's termination of Comey and efforts to have
Rosenstein take responsibility; the appointment of special counsel and
efforts to remove him; efforts to curtail the special counsel's
investigation; efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence or
affect witness cooperation or testimony; further efforts to have
Attorney General Sessions take control of the investigation, after
recusal; efforts to have White House Counsel Don McGahn deny that the
President had ordered him to have the special counsel removed; conduct
towards Flynn and Manafort; and conduct involving Michael Cohen. That
is quite a long list.
Congress should now rise to its constitutional responsibility and
conduct vigorous oversight based on the roadmap provided by the Mueller
report, both as to Russia's interference in the 2016 Presidential
election and efforts to obstruct justice during the Mueller
investigation.
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.
____________________