[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 75 (Tuesday, May 7, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2663-S2667]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Mueller Report
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, a little while ago, the majority leader
stood on this floor to speak about the investigation into the 2016
Presidential election. He triumphantly declared ``case closed''--``case
closed.'' Wishing will not make it so.
I read the Mueller report. I read it cover to cover, every page. I
read late into the evening on the day it was released and into the next
morning. I didn't start reading by expecting to make a statement about
it, but I was shaken by the evidence that the special counsel had
gathered and by the conclusions that he drew.
The majority leader would have us believe that scrutinizing this
evidence is a matter of Democrats refusing ``to make peace with the
American people's choice.'' He wants to portray this as just an
``outrage industrial complex'' because some people don't like that
President Trump won. Again, wishing will not make it so.
Sure, there is plenty to be outraged about in the special counsel's
report, but no one here is pitching a fit that Democrats didn't win the
election. No, what is at stake here is the Constitution of the United
States of America. Will Congress do its job and fulfill its
constitutional duty to serve as a check on the President? The answer
from the majority leader and his Republican colleagues is no--``case
closed.'' ``Case closed,'' they cry.
Instead of reading the words of the special counsel's report, they
just want to circle the wagons around this President. Instead of
protecting the Constitution, they want to protect the President. This
is a huge difference.
At the core of the Constitution is the principle that no one is above
the law, not even the President of the United States. My oath of office
is the same as Mitch McConnell's. I swore and he swore to uphold the
Constitution of the United States. Our Constitution is built on the
principle of separation of powers precisely to prevent a dictator, an
autocrat, from taking control of our government. This separation of
powers is part of the brilliance of our Constitution, and it has served
us well for centuries.
Yes, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States,
and so did everybody in the Senate and the House, including the
majority leader. Now we must act to fulfill that oath. There is no
``political inconvenience'' exception to the U.S. Constitution. If any
other human being in this country had done what is documented in the
Mueller report, they would be arrested and put in jail.
The majority leader doesn't want us to consider the mountain of
evidence against the President. That is wrong. He and his colleagues
have moved to protect the President instead of defending the
Constitution. Maybe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are
confused or maybe they just didn't read the report. Well, I did, and
there
[[Page S2664]]
were some passages that stuck out to me.
Since the majority leader has pronounced his judgment here on the
Senate floor, I would like to spend some time reminding him of exactly
what this report said. Let's start with this one. Robert Mueller's
report makes clear that the President took steps to impede the Mueller
investigation and that his report, though it does not charge the
President, did not exonerate him from wrongdoing. According to Mueller:
On May 17, 2017, the Acting Attorney General for the Russia
investigation appointed a Special Counsel to conduct the
investigation and related matters. The President reacted to
news that a Special Counsel had been appointed by telling
advisors that it was ``the end of his presidency'' and
demanding that Sessions resign. Sessions submitted his
resignation, but the President ultimately did not accept it.
The President told aides that the Special Counsel had
conflicts of interest and suggested that the Special Counsel
therefore could not serve. The President's advisors told him
the asserted conflicts were meritless and had already been
considered by the Department of Justice. On June 14, 2017,
the media reported that the Special Counsel's Office was
investigating whether the President had obstructed justice.
Press reports called this ``a major turning point'' in the
investigation: while Comey had told the President he was not
under investigation, following Comey's firing, the President
now was under investigation. The President reacted to this
news with a series of tweets criticizing the Department of
Justice and the Special Counsel's investigation. On June 17,
2017, the President called McGahn [who was White House
Counsel] at home and directed him to call the Acting Attorney
General and say that the Special Counsel had conflicts of
interest and must be removed.
That ends the quote from the Mueller report. According to McGahn, the
President was extremely insistent, calling him repeatedly and not
taking no for an answer. Here is what McGahn told the special counsel--
back to the Mueller report:
On Saturday, June 17, 2017, the President called McGahn and
told him to have the Special Counsel removed. McGahn was at
home and the President was at Camp David. In interviews with
this Office, McGahn recalled that the President called him at
home twice and on both occasions directed him to call
Rosenstein and say that Mueller had conflicts that precluded
him from serving as Special Counsel.
On the first call, McGahn recalled that the President said
something like, ``You gotta do this. You gotta call Rod.''
McGahn said he told the President that he would see what he
could do. McGahn was perturbed by the call and did not intend
to act on the request. He and other advisors believed the
asserted conflicts were ``silly'' and ``not real,'' and they
had previously communicated that view to the President.
McGahn also had made clear to the President that the White
House Counsel's Office should not be involved in any effort
to press the issue of conflicts. McGahn was concerned about
having any role in asking the Acting Attorney General to fire
the Special Counsel because he had grown up in the Reagan era
and wanted to be more like Judge Robert Bork and not
``Saturday Night Massacre Bork.'' McGahn considered the
President's request to be an inflection point and he wanted
to hit the brakes.
That ends the quote from the Mueller report.
Starting again from the Mueller report:
When the President called McGahn a second time to follow up
on the order to call the Department of Justice, McGahn
recalled the President was more direct, saying something
like, ``Call Rod, tell Rod that Mueller has conflicts and
can't be the Special Counsel.'' McGahn recalled the President
telling him ``Mueller has to go'' and ``Call me back when you
do it.'' McGahn understood the President to be saying that
the Special Counsel had to be removed by Rosenstein. To end
the conversation with the President, McGahn left the
President with the impression that McGahn would call
Rosenstein. McGahn recalled that he had already said no to
the President's request, and he was worn down. So he just
wanted to get off the phone.
McGahn recalled feeling trapped because he did not plan to
follow the President's directive, but he did not know what he
would say next time the President called. McGahn decided he
had to resign. He called his personal lawyer, and then he
called his chief of staff, Annie Donaldson, to inform her of
his decision. He then drove to the office to pack his
belongings and submit his resignation letter. Donaldson
recalled that McGahn told her the President had called and
demanded that he contact the Department of Justice and that
the President wanted him to do something that McGahn did not
want to do. McGahn told Donaldson that the President had
called at least twice and, in one of the calls, asked, ``have
you done it?'' McGahn did not tell Donaldson the specifics of
the President's request because he was consciously trying not
to involve her in the investigation, but Donaldson inferred
that the President's directive was related to the Russia
investigation. Donaldson prepared to resign along with
McGahn.
That evening, McGahn called both Priebus and Bannon and
told them that he intended to resign. McGahn recalled that,
after speaking with his attorney and given the nature of the
President's request, he decided not to share details of the
President's request with other White House staff. Priebus
recalled that McGahn said that the President had asked him to
``do crazy shit,'' but he thought McGahn did not tell him the
specifics of the President's request because McGahn was
trying to protect Priebus from what he did not need to know.
Priebus and Bannon both urged McGahn not to quit, and McGahn
ultimately returned to work that Monday and remained in his position.
He had not told the President directly that he planned to resign, and
when they next saw each other the President did not ask McGahn whether
he had followed through with calling Rosenstein. Around the same time,
Chris Christie recalled a telephone call with the President in which
the President asked what Christie thought about the President firing
the Special Counsel. Christie advised against doing so because there
was no substantive basis for the President to fire the Special Counsel,
and because the President would lose support from Republicans in
Congress if he did so.
That is the end of that part of the Mueller report.
Now, the other President's aides ultimately refused to carry out his
orders and prepared to resign rather than do so. The President
persisted.
Mueller recounts:
Two days after directing McGahn to have the Special Counsel
removed, the President made another attempt to affect the
course of the Russia investigation. On June 19, 2017, the
President met one-on-one in the Oval Office with his former
campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, a trusted advisor
outside the government, and dictated a message for
Lewandowski to deliver to Sessions. The message said that
Sessions should publicly announce that, notwithstanding his
recusal from the Russia investigation, that the investigation
was ``very unfair'' to the President, the President had done
nothing wrong, and Sessions planned to meet with the Special
Counsel and ``let [him] move forward with investigating
election meddling for future elections.'' Lewandowski said he
understood what the President wanted Sessions to do.
One month later, in another private meeting with
Lewandowski on July 19, 2017, the President asked about the
status of his message for Sessions to limit the Special
Counsel's investigation to future election interference.
Lewandowski told the President that the message would be
delivered soon. Hours after that meeting, the President
publicly criticized Sessions in an interview with the New
York Times, and then issued a series of tweets making it
clear that Sessions's job was in jeopardy. Lewandowski did
not want to deliver the President's message personally, so he
asked senior White House official Rick Dearborn to deliver it
to Sessions. Dearborn was uncomfortable with the task and did
not follow through.
That is the conclusion of that part of the report.
Now, President Trump also took steps to ``prevent public disclosure
of evidence'' that was related to the special counsel's investigation.
Back to the Mueller report:
In early 2018, the press reported that the President had
directed McGahn to have the special counsel removed in June
2017 and that McGahn had threatened to resign rather than
carry out the order. The President reacted to the news
stories by directing White House officials to tell McGahn to
dispute the story and to create a record stating that he had
not been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed. McGahn
told those officials that the media reports were accurate in
stating that the President had directed McGahn to have the
Special Counsel removed. The President then met with McGahn
in the Oval Office and again pressured him to deny the
reports.
That is the end of that section.
Now, the President also tried to influence witnesses, like Michael
Flynn and Paul Manafort, while they cooperated with the special
counsel.
Back to the Mueller report:
With regard to Flynn, the President sent private and public
messages to Flynn encouraging him to stay strong and
conveying that the President still cared about him before he
began to cooperate with the government. When Flynn's
attorneys withdrew him from a joint defense agreement with
the President, signaling that Flynn was potentially
cooperating with the government, the President's personal
counsel initially reminded Flynn's counsel of the President's
warm feelings toward Flynn and said ``that still remains.''
But when Flynn's counsel reiterated that Flynn could no
longer share information under a joint defense agreement, the
President's personal counsel stated that the decision would
be interpreted as reflecting Flynn's hostility toward the
President.
[[Page S2665]]
That sequence of events could have had the potential to
affect Flynn's decision to cooperate, as well as the
extent of that cooperation.
With respect to Manafort, there is evidence that the
President's actions had the potential to influence Manafort's
decision whether to cooperate with the government. The
President and his personal counsel made repeated statements
suggesting that a pardon was a possibility for Manafort,
while also making it clear that the President did not want
Manafort to ``flip''--
That is in quotes in the Mueller report--
and cooperate with the government. On June 15, 2018, the day
the judge presiding over Manafort's D.C. case was considering
whether to revoke his bail, the President said that he ``felt
badly'' for Manafort and stated, ``I think a lot of it is
very unfair.'' And when asked about a pardon for Manafort,
the President said, ``I do want to see people treated fairly.
That's what it's all about.'' Later that day, after
Manafort's bail was revoked, the President called it a
``tough sentence'' that was ``Very unfair!'' Two days later,
the President's personal counsel stated that individuals
involved in the Special Counsel's investigation could receive
a pardon ``if, in fact, the [P]resident and his advisors . .
. come to the conclusion that you have been treated
unfairly,''--using language that paralleled how the President
had already described the treatment of Manafort.
This is Mueller's report.
Those statements, combined with the President's
commendation of Manafort for being a ``brave man'' who
``refused to break,'' suggested that a pardon was a more
likely possibility if Manafort continued not to cooperate
with the government. And while Manafort eventually pleaded
guilty pursuant to a cooperation agreement, he was found to
have violated the agreement by lying to investigators.
That concludes that portion of the Mueller report.
Now, Mueller declined to take a position because of the existing
Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel policy that you cannot
indict a sitting President. He intended to leave the matter to
Congress. He laid the evidence out in the Mueller report, which made
clear that the President of the United States obstructed justice.
And don't just take my word for it. Just yesterday, over 600 former
Federal prosecutors wrote a letter stating that ``the conduct of
President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report
would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of
Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in
multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.''
So I am going to read their letter because I think it is important,
and I want to make sure it is in the Record here. Here is the letter
from more than 600 former prosecutors.
We are former federal prosecutors. We served under both
Republican and Democratic administrations at different levels
of the federal system: as line attorneys, supervisors,
special prosecutors, United States attorneys, and senior
officials at the Department of Justice. The offices in which
we served were small, medium, and large; urban, suburban, and
rural; and located in all parts of our country.
Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump
described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report would,
in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of
Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President,
result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.
I just want to read that again: ``would . . . result in multiple
felony charges for obstruction of justice.''
The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all
of the elements for an obstruction of justice charge. Conduct
that obstructed or intended to obstruct the truth-finding
process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and
connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming. These
include:
The President's efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify
evidence about that effort;
The President's effort to limit the scope of Mueller's
investigation to exclude his conduct; and
The President's efforts to prevent witnesses from
cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign.
This is under the heading in the letter ``Attempts to fire Mueller
and then create false evidence.''
Continuing with the letter:
Despite being advised by then-White House Counsel Don
McGahn that he could face legal jeopardy for doing so, Trump
directed McGahn on multiple occasions to fire Mueller or to
gin up false conflicts of interest as a pretext for getting
rid of the Special Counsel. When these acts began to come
into public view, Trump made ``repeated efforts to have
McGahn deny the story''--going so far as to tell McGahn to
write a letter ``for our files'' falsely denying that Trump
had directed Mueller's termination.
Firing Mueller would have seriously impeded the
investigation of the President and his associates--
obstruction in its most literal sense. Directing the creation
of false government records in order to prevent or
discredit truthful testimony is similarly unlawful. The
special counsel's report states: ``Substantial evidence
indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that
he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the
President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn's
account in order to deflect or prevent scrutiny of the
President's conduct toward the investigation.''
Also within the letter, under the header Attempts to Limit the
Mueller Investigation, the report describes multiple efforts by the
President to curtail the scope of the special counsel's investigation.
First, the President repeatedly pressured then-Attorney General Jeff
Sessions to reverse his legally mandated decision to recuse himself
from the investigation. The President stated the reason was that he
wanted an Attorney General who would ``protect'' him, including from
the special counsel's investigation. He also directed then-White House
Chief of Staff Reince Priebus to fire Sessions, and Priebus refused.
Second, after McGahn told the President he could not contact Sessions
himself to discuss the investigation, Trump went outside the White
House and instructed his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to
carry a demand to Sessions to direct Mueller to confine his
investigation to future elections. Lewandowski tried and failed to
contact Sessions in private. After a second meeting with Trump,
Lewandowski passed Trump's message on to senior White House official
Rick Dearborn, who Lewandowski thought would be a better messenger
because of his prior relationship with Sessions. Dearborn did not pass
along Trump's message.
As the report explains, ``[s]ubstantial evidence indicates that the
President's effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special
Counsel's investigation to future election interference was intended to
prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President's and his
campaign's conduct.''
In other words, the President employed a private citizen to try to
get the Attorney General to limit the scope of an ongoing investigation
into the President and his associates.
All of this conduct--trying to control and impede the investigation
against the President by leveraging his authority over others--is
similar to conduct we have seen that has been charged against other
public officials and people in powerful positions.
The next section of the special counsel's report establishes that the
President tried to influence the decisions of both Michael Cohen and
Paul Manafort with regard to cooperating with investigators. Some of
this tampering and intimidation, including the dangling of pardons, was
done in plain sight via tweets and public statements. Other such
behavior was done via private messages through private attorneys, such
as Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani's message to Cohen's lawyer that Cohen
should ``[s]leep well tonight[], you have friends in high places.''
Of course, these aren't the only acts of potential obstruction
detailed by the special counsel. It would be well within the purview of
normal prosecutorial judgment also to charge other acts detailed in the
report.
We emphasize that these are not matters of close, professional
judgment. Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that
could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe
here. In our system, every accused person is presumed innocent, and it
is always the government's burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable
doubt. Yet to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not
probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice--the standards
set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution--runs counter to logic and
our experience.
As former Federal prosecutors, we recognize that
prosecuting obstruction of justice cases is critical because
unchecked obstruction, which allows intentional interference
with criminal investigations to go unpunished, puts our whole
system of justice at risk. We believe strongly that but for
the OLC memo, the overwhelming weight of professional
judgment would come down in favor of prosecution for the
conduct outlined in the Mueller report.
Over 600 former Federal prosecutors are saying that if we were
talking
[[Page S2666]]
about any person in this country other than the President of the United
States, that person would be prosecuted for obstruction of justice.
Because of that OLC opinion that a sitting President cannot be
indicted, the only mechanism to hold the President accountable and to
ensure that the President is not above the law is for Congress to
initiate impeachment proceedings.
There has been more commentary. Scholars at Lawfare have put together
a very helpful piece that breaks down all of the examples documented in
the Mueller report in which Trump may have obstructed justice. Then it
analyzes the strength of the case to be made that the President is
guilty of obstruction of justice.
Per Lawfare:
The key question is how Robert Mueller and his team
assessed the three elements ``common to most of the relevant
statutes'' relating to obstruction of justice, which are an
obstructive act, a nexus between the act and an official
proceeding, and corrupt intent.
As Mueller describes, the special counsel's office
``gathered evidence . . . relevant to the elements of those
crimes and analyzed them within an elements framework--while
refraining from reaching ultimate conclusions about whether
crimes were committed'' because of the Office of Legal
Counsel (OLC)'s guidelines against the indictment of a
sitting president.
The Lawfare blog identified four instances in the Mueller report that
documented ``substantial'' evidence of all three of those elements. In
other words, in the following four examples that were documented in the
Mueller report, there is ``substantial'' evidence on all three of the
elements that Mueller based his assessment on that the President
obstructed justice.
First, when it comes to the President's efforts to fire Mueller, the
report found ``substantial evidence''--that is from the report--that
the President's actions constituted an obstructive act. On page 89, it
found that the former White House Counsel, Don McGahn, was a ``credible
witness'' in providing evidence that Trump, indeed, attempted to fire
Mueller. The report reads that this ``would qualify as an obstructive
act'' if the firing ``would naturally obstruct the investigation and
any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.''
Then it established that there was a nexus between the act and an
official proceeding, reading on page 89 that there is ``substantial
evidence'' that Trump was aware that ``his conduct was under
investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of
federal crimes to a grand jury.''
On the question of intent, the Mueller report found ``substantial
evidence indicates that the President's attempts to remove the Special
Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel's oversight of
investigations that involved the President's conduct[.]''
The second example that Mueller cites is the President's efforts to
curtail Mueller. On the question of whether those actions constituted
an obstructive act, Mueller found that Trump's effort to force Sessions
to confine the investigation to investigating only future election
interference ``would qualify as an obstructive act if it would
naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings
that might flow from the inquiry.'' The report continues: ``Taken
together, the President's directives indicate that Sessions was being
instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing
investigation into the President and his campaign[.]''
On the question of whether there was a nexus between the act and an
official proceeding, Mueller found that at the relevant point, ``the
existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special
Counsel was public knowledge.''
On the question of intent, Mueller found ``substantial evidence''
that indicates that Trump's efforts were ``intended to prevent further
investigative scrutiny of the President's and his campaign's conduct.''
Mitch McConnell came to the floor to declare that there will be no
more investigation into what the President has done. Yet the Mueller
report has made clear that there are repeated instances of obstruction
of justice. More than 600 Federal prosecutors have now said that what
is laid out in the Mueller report would constitute obstruction of
justice and would trigger a prosecution for any human being in this
country other than for the President of the United States.
Robert Mueller has put all of the facts and information together for
us and has abided by the Trump administration's declaration, under the
Office of Legal Counsel, that a sitting President cannot be indicted
for his crimes. He has handed it over to the Congress of the United
States of America for us to do our constitutional duty.
We are a government that works by a separation of powers. We are not
a government that circles the wagon around a leader and says that
everything else falls away. Instead, we say there are powers that are
given to the President and powers that are given to Congress, and each
operates as a check on the other.
The information that has been given to us in the Mueller report
clearly constitutes adequate information to begin an impeachment
proceeding in the House of Representatives. No matter how many times
Mitch McConnell or the rest of the Republicans want to wish that away,
it is there in black and white in the report.
I urge every Republican in this Chamber, every Republican and
Democrat in Congress, and every person in this country to read the
Mueller report.
Robert Mueller makes clear that the President of the United States
worked actively to obstruct justice. There is enough here to bring an
impeachment proceeding. For us, for this body, for Congress, to back up
from that and to say that protecting the President is more important
than protecting the Constitution is not only wrong, it is a violation
of our oath of office.
I am here to say one more time and publicly this is not a fight I
wanted to take on, but this is the fight in front of us now. This is
not about politics. This is about the Constitution of the United States
of America.
We took an oath not to try to protect Donald Trump; we took an oath
to protect and serve the Constitution of the United States of America,
and the way we do that is we begin impeachment proceedings now against
this President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). The assistant Democratic leader.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from
Massachusetts for her statement and for going into depth on the Mueller
report and talking about the findings.
This morning, of course, we heard the Republican leader, Senator
McConnell, come to the floor and say something quite different--to
quote what he said, the work of the special counsel and the Attorney
General ``and how we can finally end this `Groundhog Day' spectacle,
stop endlessly relitigating a 2\1/2\-year-old election result, and move
forward for the American people.''
It is pretty clear the Republican leader would like to say to the
American people: Keep on moving, there is nothing to be seen here. But
we know better.
If you take a look at the Mueller report: $26 million spent, 50
attorneys and agents, almost 2 years, scores of indictments that came
down and some guilty pleas already and yet even more to follow. This
isn't over, and it will not be over soon, nor should it be.
It is obvious my Republican colleagues want to move on as quickly as
possible from talking about how Russia interfered in the 2016 election
with the stated intent of helping to elect Donald Trump President. They
definitely don't want to talk about the many links between the Russians
and the Trump campaign or how, in the words of the Mueller report:
``The campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information
stolen and released through Russian efforts.''
They certainly don't want to talk about the overwhelming evidence
that Donald Trump obstructed justice.
Today I believe the count was up to 566 former prosecutors, including
U.S. attorneys, who believe that, reading the Mueller report, there is
ample evidence to go forward with the prosecution on obstruction.
We know Mueller himself has said in the report that it is an opinion
by the Office of Legal Counsel precluding the indictment and
prosecution of a President while in office that stopped him short of
either charging or exonerating the President on this charge.
[[Page S2667]]
No, my Republican colleagues want to put the Russia investigation in
the past, and as quickly as possible. And then in the next breath, of
course, at the hearing where Attorney General Barr appeared, we see
that they want to return to those thrilling days of yesteryear. They
say we need to look at Hillary Clinton's emails all over again. That,
to them, is a more compelling issue. I think they are wrong. The
interference by a foreign power in the U.S. election is the most
compelling issue before us, and it cannot and should not be ignored.
The work on the Russia investigation is not over. The Mueller report
has 14 criminal investigations that have been referred by the special
counsel to other Justice Department components. Twelve of those
referred investigations are redacted so we don't know their nature.
There is also the counterintelligence side of the investigation. We
need to fully understand what evidence Special Counsel Mueller
uncovered about how the Russians were able to accomplish what they did.
A spokesman for the White House said several days ago that he
couldn't understand all the furor behind this Russia interference.
After all, they just bought a couple Facebook ads. Well, it turns out
he was wrong. There was a lot more involvement, and the Mueller report
pointed to it.
Here is my concern: Attorney General Barr's actions have compromised
his credibility when it comes to overseeing the continuing
investigations that were brought on by the Mueller inquiry. Barr's
blatant mischaracterization of the Mueller report in his March 24
letter and April 18 press conference, his 19-page memo in 2018 that
showed bias on the question of obstruction, his decision to make a
prosecutorial judgment on obstruction despite Mueller's view that it
was not appropriate for the Department to do so in light of that OLC
opinion, and Barr's many stunning statements before Congress have
undermined confidence in his independence and his judgment.
I have called on him publicly and renew that call that he recuse
himself from those pending criminal investigations and prosecutions
that emanate from the Mueller report. At a minimum, he should recuse
himself from the 14 ongoing referred criminal investigations, and
Special Counsel Mueller and Don McGahn should be called on to testify
about unresolved questions.
Why in the world are they trying to cover up this investigation? Why
wouldn't we bring Bob Mueller before the Senate Judiciary Committee,
for example, and ask obvious questions?
Remember, there are two volumes in the Mueller report. The first
volume relates to Russian interference in the election and our
continuing concern that they are going to try it again in 2020.
Shouldn't it be priority one of the Senate Judiciary Committee to have
Bob Mueller before us, to have the evidence he accumulated carefully
evaluated to protect the integrity of the election process in 2020? Is
there any higher priority in a democracy than the integrity of an
election?
Clearly, there is, and we have seen it and heard it from the chairman
of the Judiciary Committee as well as from the Republican leader today.
The highest priority for them is to move on; make certain that we don't
spend any moment contemplating, considering, or even arguing about what
we could do to make this a better and safer democracy in the next
electoral cycle.
On the issue of obstruction of justice, I am afraid we are going to
be debating that for some time, but I certainly would like to hear from
Bob Mueller, directly, what he did find and why he did not reach a
conclusion to exonerate the President on that charge. That is a
critical element.
Let me say one last word about a recurring theme and message from the
Republican leader about how the previous President, Barack Obama, did
not take seriously the threats of Russian involvement in the 2016
election.
I think the record speaks for itself. Leading up to October 7, when
the President came forward and publicly stated what he had been doing--
what his administration had been doing to investigate this Russian
interference, he called for a bipartisan commitment of Republicans and
Democrats to stop it in place.
There was one voice of resistance, and it came from Senator
McConnell, the Republican leader. He didn't want to take this as
seriously as President Obama did. So for him to blame President Obama
for not doing enough is to ignore the obvious. Given the chance, as the
Republican Senate leader, he did little or nothing to acknowledge the
Russian threat or do anything about it.
Now we should do something to make sure 2020 turns out to be an
election we can be proud of, regardless of the outcome. Let the
American people have the last word, not Vladimir Putin.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.