House republicans vow tough questions for Robert Mueller at hearing
House Republicans are pledging tough questioning of special counsel Robert Mueller when he testifies before Congress this week as Democrats plan to air evidence of wrongdoing by President Donald Trump in a potentially last-ditch bid to impeach him. Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on House Judiciary Committee, said the American public is growing weary of the Russia investigation three months after the release of the special counsel’s 448-page report and that “any thought of impeachment is waning.” He said Republicans will be focused on making clear that the report represents a “final episode” in the Russia probe, which he described as flawed. “Remember, the Mueller report is a one-sided report,” Collins said. “It has not been questioned from the other side. This is our chance to do that.” Days before back-to-back hearings Wednesday, both sides seemed to agree that Mueller’s testimony could be pivotal in shifting public opinion on the question of “holding the president accountable.” “This is a president who has violated the law 6 ways from Sunday,” said New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He argued that Mueller’s report lays out “very substantial evidence” that Trump is guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the constitutional standard for impeachment. “We have to present — or let Mueller present — those facts to the American people … because the administration must be held accountable and no president can be above the law,” Nadler said. The House Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee will question Mueller in separate hearings on the report. While the report did not find sufficient evidence to establish charges of criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to swing the election, it said Trump could not be cleared of trying to obstruct the investigation . But Mueller believed Trump couldn’t be indicted in part because of a Justice Department opinion against prosecuting a sitting president. Mueller has said he doesn’t intend to speak beyond the findings of the report in congressional hearings. Still, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee plan to focus on a narrow set of episodes laid out in the report to direct Americans’ attention to what they see as the most egregious examples of Trump’s conduct, which point to obstruction of justice. The examples include Trump’s directions to then-White House counsel Donald McGahn to have Mueller removed and, later, orders from Trump to McGahn to deny that happened. Democrats also will focus questioning on a series of meetings Trump had with former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski in which the Republican president directed Lewandowski to persuade then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to limit Mueller’s investigation. Collins, meanwhile, said Republicans will focus in part on the origins of the Russia investigation, which Trump has long derided as a political “witch hunt” as well as evidence they see of potential bias in the FBI’s handling of the probe. “There’s going to be a lot of questions for what he did say, what he didn’t say, and how this thing started,” he said, referring to Mueller. “This is the time that the Democrats have got to show on their end how much time they have been wasting of our committee and how we have not been getting things done because they simply don’t like this president, who was elected by the people in 2016, and they’re just trying to derail him for 2020.” Mueller’s appearance comes more than two years since the start of the Russia investigation, an extraordinary moment in Trump’s presidency when, after Trump had fired FBI Director James Comey, his Justice Department appointed Mueller to take over the inquiry into election interference and the potential role that Trump and his winning 2016 campaign may have played. While Mueller’s testimony was once envisioned as a crystalizing event, a Watergate-style moment to uncover truths, public attention has drifted in the months since the report was released. “We want Bob Mueller to bring it to life, to talk about what’s in that report,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, Democrat-California, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. “It’s a pretty damning set of facts that involve a presidential campaign in a close race welcoming help from a hostile foreign power, not reporting it but eagerly embracing it, building it into their campaign strategy, lying about it to cover up, then obstructing an investigation into foreign interference again to try to cover up.” Intelligence committee aides have said they believe the public has received a slanted view of what Mueller found on the question of criminal conspiracy because of Trump’s repeated claims of “no collusion,” and because the details of Russia’s interference in the election — and the outreach to the Trump campaign — haven’t gotten enough attention. “Who better to bring them to life than the man who did the investigation himself?” Schiff asked. Nadler said he’s not worried that Republicans might seek to attack the credibility of the Russia investigation and says he hopes to take cues from the public after the hearing about “where we go from here.” “We hope it won’t end up being a dud,” he said. Nadler spoke on “Fox News Sunday,” Schiff appeared on CBS’ “Face the Nation” and Collins was on Fox News Channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures.” By Hope Yen Associated Press Associated Press writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
‘It will not be easy’: Dems prepare for their Robert Mueller moment
Some are watching old video of his previous testimony. Others are closely re-reading his 448-page report. And almost all are worrying about how they’ll make the most of the short time they’ll have for questioning.Robert Mueller, the Democrats know, will be tough to crack. The stern, reticent former FBI director has said he won’t answer questions beyond what is in the report on Russia’s election meddling and the Trump campaign and possible obstruction of justice when he comes to Congress on July 17. Mueller is expected to testify in front of the Judiciary and intelligence committees for two hours each, with time split evenly between Republicans and Democrats, though that timing is still a subject of negotiations. That means Democrats will have to be efficient and targeted in their attempts to extract information from the former special counsel and spotlight what they say are his most damaging findings against President Donald Trump. “It will not be easy,” said Rhode Island Rep. David Cicilline, a Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee. He added: “We just have to be very smart about how we use the time and really give the special counsel the time to tell the story.” Cicilline says he’s reading the report a second time, thoroughly, with an eye toward what he wants to ask. Separately, a Democratic aide said staff members have been watching old videos of Mueller testifying as FBI director during the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. They’re looking to see how he’ll act, the aide said, and they have noticed he gives minimal commentary when answering questions. The aide was not authorized to discuss internal preparations for the hearing and requested anonymity. Wary of their challenging witness, Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee huddled Wednesday evening to discuss strategy for questioning Mueller, along with other topics. Exactly how the hearing will be structured is still being negotiated, members said as they emerged, but Democrats are expected to divvy up the questions in a methodical way. Among the topics up for discussion as the hearing approaches: Should they work through the report step by step, or paint a general picture? Will every member be able to speak in the short time they have? And what can they do to best crystalize the findings of a report that they believe Americans haven’t read or absorbed? New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, a member of the panel, said before the meeting that he expects to discuss “what the team strategy is going to be as we begin an intensive phase of preparation.” Republicans seem to have given it less thought. Ohio Rep. Steve Chabot, a senior GOP member of Judiciary, said he hasn’t started preparing and expects little news from the event. He said Democrats are just “chasing their tails” and are aiming to placate base voters who want to see the Democratic House majority take on the president. “It’s possible a few people could change their opinion, but overall I think it’s not likely,” Chabot said. The Judiciary Committee is expected to focus on the second half of Mueller’s report, which details multiple episodes in which Trump attempted to influence the investigation. Mueller said he couldn’t exonerate the president on obstruction of justice. The House’s intelligence panel, which will go second, will focus on the first half of the report, which details Russian interference in the presidential election. Mueller said there wasn’t enough evidence to establish a conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign, but detailed several contacts between the two as well as the Trump campaign’s willingness to accept Russian help. Under a deal struck with the committees, two of Mueller’s deputies — James Quarles and Aaron Zebley — are expected to meet with the panels in separate closed sessions after Mueller’s public hearing. But that might be in jeopardy as the Justice Department has pushed back on the arrangement, according to two people familiar with the negotiations. They requested anonymity to discuss the private talks. The chairman of the intelligence panel, Rep. Adam Schiff, Democrat-California, said Tuesday said he wouldn’t discuss the details of those negotiations, but that the deputies have agreed to appear and “I have no reason to believe that will be unsuccessful.” One issue that Judiciary members are expected to focus on is whether Mueller will state whether Trump would have been charged with a crime were he not president. Jeffries said that answer could “strike to the heart of why a prosecution or recommendation to prosecute wasn’t included in the report.” Mueller said at a May news conference that charging a president with a crime was “not an option” because of longstanding Justice Department policy. But Democrats want to know more about how he made that decision, and when. It’s unclear if he will go beyond his previous comments. Mueller, who was reluctant to testify at all, has been firm that he will stick to what’s already in the report. Some lawmakers say that’s OK and just want to reach a broader audience of Americans who they fear have tuned out. “This isn’t a question of creating a narrative,” said Florida Rep. Ted Deutch, another Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. “The narrative is already out there. It’s simply highlighting what is already there.” By Mary Clare Jalonick and Lisa Mascaro Associated Press Associated Press writer Michael Balsamo contributed to this report. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Hope Hicks rebuffs questions on Donald Trump White House in interview
Former top White House adviser Hope Hicks refused to answer questions related to her time in the White House in a daylong interview with the House Judiciary Committee, dimming Democrats’ chances of obtaining new or substantive information about President Donald Trump in their first interview with a person linked to his inner circle. Frustrated Democrats leaving the meeting Wednesday said Hicks and her lawyer rigidly followed White House orders to stay quiet about her time there and said they would be forced to go to court to obtain answers. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, Democrat-New York, said Hicks’ lawyers asserted the White House’s principle that as one of Trump’s close advisers she is “absolutely immune” from talking about her time there because of separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. Nadler said that principle is “ridiculous” and Democrats intend to “destroy” it in court. Nadler said the committee plans to take the administration to court on the immunity issue, and Hicks’ interview would be part of that litigation. In a letter Tuesday to Nadler, White House counsel Pat Cipollone wrote that Trump had directed Hicks not to answer questions “relating to the time of her service as a senior adviser to the president.” The White House has similarly cited broad executive privilege with respect to many of the Democrats’ other investigative demands, using the president’s power to withhold information to protect the confidentiality of the Oval Office decision-making process. Hicks did answer some questions about her time on Trump’s campaign, the lawmakers said, but they said they learned little that was new. “She’s objecting to stuff that’s already in the public record,” California Rep. Karen Bass said on a break from the interview. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, Democrat-Washington, called her answers “a farce.” California Rep. Ted Lieu tweeted about the meeting while it was ongoing, writing that Hicks refused to answer even innocuous questions such as whether she had previously testified before Congress and where her office was located in the White House. In all, she was behind closed doors for eight hours, with an hourlong break for lunch. Democrats pressed Hicks on episodes she might have witnessed as one of Trump’s closest advisers. During questioning about the campaign, Rep. Madeleine Dean, Democrat-Pennsylvania, said she asked Hicks if she had been aware of any outreach from the Russians. After Hicks responded no, Dean named apparent contacts, such as emails, some of which are mentioned in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report. Hicks said she hadn’t thought those contacts were “relevant,” according to Dean. Republicans had a different perspective, saying she was cooperative and the interview was a waste of time, especially in light of Mueller’s two-year investigation. The top Republican on the panel, Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, said after the interview that the committee “took eight hours to find out what really most of us knew at the beginning.” Hicks was a key witness for Mueller, delivering important information to the special counsel’s office about multiple episodes involving the president. Mueller wrote in his report released in April that there was not enough evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia, but said he could not exonerate Trump on obstruction of justice. The report examined several situations in which Trump attempted to influence or curtail Mueller’s investigation. Democrats has planned to ask Hicks about several of those episodes, including efforts to remove Mueller from the investigation, pressure on former Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the firing of FBI Director James Comey. They also planned to ask about Hicks’ knowledge of hush-money payments orchestrated by former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen to two women who claimed to have had affairs with Trump — the porn actress Stormy Daniels and model Karen McDougal. Trump has denied the allegations. Cohen is now serving three years in prison partly for campaign violations related to the payments. One lawmaker who was in the room said Hicks would not answer many of those questions. The person requested anonymity to discuss the closed-door interview. As Hicks spoke to the committee, Trump tweeted throughout the day. He said the interview was “extreme Presidential Harassment,” and wrote that Democrats “are very unhappy with the Mueller Report, so after almost 3 years, they want a Redo, or Do Over.” He also tweeted that it was “so sad that the Democrats are putting wonderful Hope Hicks through hell.” Trump has broadly stonewalled House Democrats’ investigations and said he will fight “all of the subpoenas.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is taking a methodical approach to investigating Trump. More than 60 lawmakers in her caucus — including around a dozen on the Judiciary Committee — have called for opening an impeachment inquiry, but she has said she wants committees to investigate first and come to a decision on impeachment later. While Trump has continued to block their requests, Democrats have recently made some minor gains, such as the Justice Department’s agreement to make some underlying evidence from Mueller’s report available to committee members. The Judiciary panel wanted a higher-profile interview with Hicks, subpoenaing her for public testimony. But they agreed to the private interview after negotiations. A transcript of the session will be released in the coming days. The committee has also subpoenaed Hicks for documents, but she has only partially complied. She agreed to provide some information from her work on Trump’s campaign, but none from her time at the White House because of the administration’s objections. Also Wednesday, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said Russia-born business executive Felix Sater will talk to House intelligence committee staff behind closed doors as part of its investigation into Russian election interference. Schiff wouldn’t give a date for the interview, but another person familiar with the meeting said it will happen Friday. The person requested anonymity to discuss the private interview. Sater worked with Cohen on a Trump Tower deal in Moscow before the 2016 election. The project was later abandoned. Schiff said the committee will also talk to
Bipartisan Senate bill aims to protect special counsel’s job
Two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are moving to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller‘s job, putting forth new legislation that aims to ensure the integrity of current and future independent investigations. Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware plan to introduce the legislation Thursday. The bill would allow any special counsel for the Department of Justice to challenge his or her removal in court, with a review by a three-judge panel within 14 days of the challenge. The bill would be retroactive to May 17, 2017 — the day Mueller was appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 election and possible ties to Donald Trump‘s campaign. “It is critical that special counsels have the independence and resources they need to lead investigations,” Tillis said in a statement. “A back-end judicial review process to prevent unmerited removals of special counsels not only helps to ensure their investigatory independence, but also reaffirms our nation’s system of check and balances.” Mueller was appointed as special counsel in May following Trump’s abrupt firing of FBI Director James Comey. Mueller, who was Comey’s predecessor as FBI director, has assembled a team of prosecutors and lawyers with experience in financial fraud, national security and organized crimes to investigate contacts between Moscow and the Trump campaign. Trump has been critical of Mueller since his appointment, and his legal team is looking into potential conflicts surrounding the team Mueller has hired, including the backgrounds of members and political contributions by some members to Hillary Clinton. He has also publicly warned Mueller that he would be out of bounds if he dug into the Trump family’s finances. Mueller has strong support on Capitol Hill. Senators in both parties have expressed concerns that Trump may try to fire Mueller and have warned him not to do so. “Ensuring that the special counsel cannot be removed improperly is critical to the integrity of his investigation,” Coons said. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, another member of the Judiciary panel, said last week that he was working on a similar bill that would prevent the firing of a special counsel without judicial review. Graham said then that firing Mueller “would precipitate a firestorm that would be unprecedented in proportions.” The Tillis and Coons bill would allow review after the special counsel had been dismissed. If the panel found there was no good cause for the counsel’s removal, the person would be immediately reinstated. The legislation would also codify existing Justice Department regulations that a special counsel can only be removed for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest or other good cause, such as a violation of departmental policies. In addition, only the attorney general or the most senior Justice Department official in charge of the matter could fire the special counsel. In the case of the current investigation, Rosenstein is charged with Mueller’s fate because Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from all matters having to do with the Trump-Russia investigation. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
