[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Page 3446]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          CALLING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon on a few matters: 
first, Russia and the continuing investigation into Russian 
interference in our election and the ties between the Trump campaign, 
transition team, and Russia.
  The events of this weekend, which included another troubling, 
baseless tweet from the President, highlight and, in fact, strengthen 
the argument for a special prosecutor to conduct the investigation. And 
the American people agree. A CNN/ORC poll this morning showed that 
about two-thirds of Americans think a special prosecutor should conduct 
the investigation--67 percent of the Independents and even 43 percent 
of the Republicans. The trend line suggests these numbers will continue 
to grow.
  So my Republican colleagues should understand that what they know in 
their hearts is the right thing to do. Do a strong, impartial 
investigation and get to the bottom of this. That is where the American 
people want them to go. The American people disagree with President 
Trump and want a thorough and impartial investigation--even 43 percent 
of Republicans. They are right.
  A special prosecutor is the best way to ensure that an investigation 
proceeds impartially for several reasons.
  First, by Department of Justice guidelines that are set up for this 
purpose, a special counsel is not subject to day-to-day supervision by 
the Attorney General--now recused--or anyone else at the Justice 
Department. That means the special prosecutor would have much greater 
latitude in whom he can subpoena, which questions he can ask, and how 
to conduct the investigation. Second, the prosecutor can only be 
removed for good cause, such as misconduct, not to quash the 
investigation. So there is an insularity there. He or she is protected 
if they are moving forward on the investigation. Third, there is built 
in congressional oversight. Congress is notified whenever a special 
counsel is appointed, removed, or finished with the investigation. 
Last, the special counsel has the independence to prosecute not only 
the subject of an investigation but anyone who attempts to interfere.
  This is the right way to go. Let me quote Attorney General Jeff 
Sessions on this issue. Here is what he once said: ``The appropriate 
response when the subject matter is public and it arises in a highly-
charged political atmosphere is for the Attorney General to appoint a 
Special Counsel of great public stature and indisputable independence 
to assure the public the matter will be handled without partisanship.''
  If there were ever a case that fit exactly what then-Senator, now-
Attorney General Sessions called for, this is it.
  This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee is going to have a hearing 
on the nomination of Mr. Rosenstein to serve as the Deputy Attorney 
General. During that hearing, Mr. Rosenstein should commit to naming a 
special prosecutor to look into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia. 
Mr. Rosenstein, by reputation, is a fair man. He is a career 
prosecutor. Now that the Attorney General has recused himself, Mr. 
Rosenstein, pending confirmation, will have the duty to appoint a 
special prosecutor. If he will not appoint a special prosecutor, he 
will need a darn good reason. It is hard for me to see one right now.
  Whether Mr. Rosenstein will appoint a special prosecutor will be 
front and center tomorrow at the Judiciary Committee's hearing and far 
and away the most important question he needs to answer. As I mentioned 
last week, if, pending confirmation, Mr. Rosenstein delays or refuses 
to appoint a special prosecutor, Congress should consider reviving a 
narrower version of the independent counsel law.
  Also, we should make sure, certain, that the investigation has not 
been interfered with thus far. I sent a letter today to the inspector 
general of the Department of Justice, Michael Horowitz, which was made 
public today, urging him to open an immediate investigation to 
determine if anyone has interfered with this investigation up to now, 
either attempting to influence the direction of the investigation or 
those conducting it.
  The Attorney General should have recused himself on day one. I asked 
him to do it almost 3 weeks ago, on February 14. We need to know if he 
or anyone else has meddled in this investigation in any way. His 
misleading statements to the Judiciary Committee about his meetings 
with the Russian Ambassador only add suspicion.
  Attorney General Sessions has been in charge of this investigation 
for 3 weeks. We need to know if he or anyone else did anything in that 
time to hinder the investigation because it is absolutely critical that 
we protect the integrity of this investigation. That means ensuring 
that it is completely independent going forward and that nothing has 
already occurred that could compromise it. The good news is, the 
inspector general can take this investigation on his own and go forward 
with what we asked for in the letter on his own. I would urge him to do 
so.

                          ____________________