[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8242-8244]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          RUSSIA INVESTIGATION

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on a separate note, it has been more than 
5 months since the intelligence agencies in the United States reached a 
solid consensus on a critical issue. The agencies presented to the 
American people 5 months ago their damning assessment that Russia 
actively tried to interfere in our last Presidential election to help 
elect someone they thought would be a better friend to the Russian 
interests.
  I think it is important to recall some of the key findings by our own 
intelligence agencies on a virtually unanimous basis. They said:

       Russian efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential 
     election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's 
     longstanding desire to undermine the U.S.-led liberal 
     democratic order, but these activities demonstrate a 
     significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and 
     scope of effort compared to previous operations.
       We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an 
     influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential 
     election.

  Our intelligence agencies went on to say:

       Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. 
     democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her 
     electability and potential presidency. We further assess that 
     Putin and the Russian government developed a clear preference 
     for President-elect Trump.
       Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered 
     campaign aimed at the U.S. presidential election to future 
     influence efforts worldwide, including against U.S. allies 
     and their election processes.

  We have never seen anything like this in our history--nothing. What 
Vladimir Putin did--or tried to do--is staggering, momentous, and 
something we should not ignore. A foreign adversary intentionally 
manipulating America's democracy and election to try to get a result 
friendly to Russia but not consistent with American public opinion--
that was his goal.
  The dictionary defines an act of war as ``an act of aggression by a 
country against another with which it is nominally at peace.''
  Was the Russia attack on our election an act of war? Is sure seems 
close to the definition. At a minimum, it was an act of cyber war 
against America and an attack on our democracy. It should not go 
unanswered. Troublingly, there have been few answers forthcoming from 
this President and this Congress.

[[Page 8243]]

  What did the White House and the majority party in Congress do to 
respond to this act of cyber war to protect against any future attacks? 
Virtually nothing. As more and more questions have emerged about 
possible collusion between the Trump campaign and these Russian actions 
against our election, possible Russian money, and the President's 
business interests, and troubling ties between those close to Trump and 
the Russians, this President has instead been trying to endear himself 
to the Russians, incredibly.
  That is right. On May 10, he had a closed meeting with the Russian 
Foreign Minister and Ambassador in which the President reportedly 
boasted about sensitive intelligence and--this is truly incredible--
also boasted about firing our Nation's FBI Director to relieve the 
``great pressure'' on him over the Russia investigation.
  In fact, he reportedly told the Russians:

       I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut 
     job . . . I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's 
     taken off . . . I'm not under investigation.

  That is the end of the attributed quote to the President of the 
United States.
  Let that sink in for a moment. The President of the United States was 
bragging to the same people who attacked our election and democracy 
that he had fired the top law enforcement officer investigating that 
attack. That is incredible, both for its obvious appearance of 
obstruction of justice but also for what should have so obviously been 
said in that meeting instead.
  President Trump, instead of a frivolous exchange with a dictatorial 
regime that attacked our Nation, should have had as his first message 
to the Russians the obvious: Do not ever interfere in our elections or 
those of our allies again or you will face serious consequences--end of 
meeting.
  Then the President should have come out and related this conversation 
to the American press and to the American people.
  Instead, the President let the Russians bring their own official 
photographer from the TASS Soviet news agency into the Oval Office 
and--get this--excluded all of the American press--just the friendly 
Russian cameras. Then, the Russians gleefully sent out victory tweets 
of the President's warm and friendly greeting.
  This is totally upside down. Yet it only gets worse. Stunningly, it 
was just revealed Monday night that President Trump asked two of the 
Nation's top intelligence officials in March to help him push back 
against the FBI investigation into possible collusion between his 
campaign and the Russian Government.
  The Washington Post reported that President Trump made separate 
appeals to the Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, and the 
Director of the National Security Agency, Admiral Mike Rogers. Coats 
and Rogers both rightly refused to comply with President Trump's 
request, properly deemed as an inappropriate request from the President 
of the United States to leaders of our intelligence-gathering 
community. I applaud the respect of these two men for our democratic 
norms and system of government and the rejection of the President's 
reckless, selfish request.
  This is breathtaking--an American President running from the Russians 
to our Nation's top law enforcement agency to our intelligence 
community, bizarrely pleading innocence on a matter of grave national 
security and trying to undermine ongoing investigations.
  Former CIA General Counsel Jeffrey Smith said Trump's deeply 
troubling effort is an echo of President Nixon's ``unsuccessful effort 
to use the CIA to shut down the FBI's investigation of the Watergate 
break-in on national security grounds'' and, in his words, these 
actions were ``an appalling abuse of power.''
  I had argued that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should 
either appoint a special counsel to look at the allegations of 
collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians or tender his 
resignation. I said this after he was set up by the Trump 
administration to write a memo explaining the firing of James Comey as 
Director of the FBI and giving as his reason to protect the honor and 
integrity of Hillary Clinton during the campaign.
  That was a laughable assertion.
  Rosenstein wrote it. For at least 24 hours, that was the official 
line from the Trump White House. Then, there was the Lester Holt 
interview on NBC, and the President came out and said: I wanted to get 
rid of him months ago; I wanted to put an end to this Russian thing.
  I am pleased that Mr. Rosenstein made the right decision when he 
appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller to fill the special 
counsel role.
  Back in the year 2001, that ominous year of 9/11, I first met Robert 
Mueller. He was the Director of the FBI. We worked together on some 
important issues relative to the FBI. I came to respect him very much. 
He is a decorated veteran of the Vietnam war, where he served as an 
officer in the Marine Corps, a former Federal judge, a man of the 
opposite political faith, but a man who clearly loves his country above 
party, whenever he is asked. He is a man who has not only risen to the 
challenge of public service but who has excelled to the point where his 
term as Director of the FBI was extended--a rarity around Washington 
and, certainly, on a bipartisan basis almost unthinkable these days. 
But it happened with Robert Mueller. It happened because he is smart, 
he is principled, and he loves his country, and we know it. I don't 
think Rod Rosenstein could have chosen a better person.
  I don't know if I will ultimately agree with his investigation of 
this critical issue, but I will respect his findings, whatever they may 
be, because I know that they are heartfelt, sincere, and principled.
  While this special counsel investigation will be critical, it is not 
a substitute, however, for continued congressional action, as well, as 
some have suggested or perhaps hoped. I know the Senate Intelligence 
Committee is actively pursuing this matter, and I salute them for that 
effort, but I think we need to think about more. We need to think about 
an independent commission--a bipartisan, transparent commission--to 
deal with policy questions. For instance, what are we going to face 
from the Russians in the next election? What did we learn in the last 
election to protect ourselves?
  The special counsel is going to focus on whether crimes were 
committed, but I am deeply concerned that there may be matters related 
to Russia's attack that may not involve crimes themselves but should be 
made public to the American people. It is Congress's responsibility, 
just as it was after the September 11 tragedy, to make sure the 
American people know as much as possible in a democracy. That is how it 
works.
  Former Watergate investigator Scott Armstrong made this point in an 
op-ed in Sunday's New York Times. He pointed out how a select 
congressional committee and a special prosecutor overcame partisan and 
jurisdictional conflicts to get to the truth during Watergate. He 
noted:

       A mature special prosecutor and a well-led congressional 
     inquiry can coordinate over issues like witness immunity. 
     Congress can creatively expand its witness list beyond 
     prosecution targets and fill in critical details from 
     satellite witnesses . . . If the committee is aggressive and 
     truly bipartisan, it can not only educate and reassure the 
     public, but also legislate solutions to prevent future 
     abuses.

  There are a lot of parallels between the Watergate era and what we 
face today, but, sadly, one major difference from the Nixon era to the 
Trump era is the willingness of members of the President's own party to 
stand up and speak out.
  Back in Nixon's day, there came a moment when a handful of Senators 
from this Chamber changed history, and one of them was Barry Goldwater. 
He met with President Nixon and he said: There are only so many lies 
you can take, and now there has been one too many.
  Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania joined him, as well as another 
Republican--John Rhodes, a Republican leader in the House. They made it 
clear to President Nixon that what he had done was

[[Page 8244]]

unacceptable by any standard and they would no longer stand by him. It 
took courage for them to do that. The President saw the writing on the 
wall, and he resigned.
  We are looking for similar leadership today from both sides of the 
aisle--not just Democrats but Republicans as well--to stand up and 
defend our democracy from Putin's interference.
  There have been months of relative inaction. It is clear that the 
President is not going to stand up to Russia. It is time for all of 
us--Democrats and Republicans in Congress--to act for the good of this 
Nation and get to the truth of what happened and make sure Russia can 
never do this to our democracy again.

                          ____________________