tv Senate Judiciary Committee Meeting on Subpoenas Related to the FB Is Russia... CSPAN June 13, 2020 2:00pm-4:16pm EDT
journal" live at 7:00 eastern sunday morning and join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages and tweets. presidents from public affairs available now in paperback and e-book, resents biographies of every president organized by the ranking by noted historians from best to worst and features perspectives into the lives of our executives and leadership styles. visit our website, c-span.org /the president, to learn more about each feature and order your copy today wherever books anti-books are sold. -- and e-books are sold. >> the senate judiciary committee authorized subpoenas for individuals involved in the investigatione
into possible ties between the trump campaign and russian officials. they voted on party lines to authorize subpoenas to former officials, including james comey , a former cia director, john brennan, and director of national intelligence james clapper. senator graham: good morning. we are making progress. we are somewhat closer together now. hello, senator grassley. a brief update, and then we will take of the business of the committee where we left off. next week, we will have a hearing about policing, community policing and the use of force.
we will have two panels. it will be a long day. i hope it will be an informative day and i hope good will come out of it. last time that we talked, we talked about witnesses regarding the inquiry into the robert mueller investigation. ourenator feinstein, and friends on the other side, i promise that if you want to call robert mueller or his designee, that is fine with me, at the appropriate time. when the michael flynn cases over, when it happens i want the doj to tell us why they decided to drop it, and if you want to call mr. gleason or judge gleason, or anybody else as to why it should not have been dismissed, we will do that. that would be a good topic for this committee. having said that, the business before the committee was senator feinstein's amendment. would you like to vote, talk or what do you want to do? >> i would like to make opening
statements. senator graham: absolutely. i am done, it is all yours. senator feinstein and senator lee. feinstein: thank you. it is my understanding that today we are resuming debate on the chair's resolution integrate himself unilateral subpoena authority. earlier markups, this is really unprecedented, at least in my 26 years. the resolution would give the chair sole authority to issue literally hundreds of subpoenas without any agreement from the ranking member or any committee vote on any specific subpoena, as required by committee rules. simply put, if the resolution
passes, it will remove in the role of the minority in issuing a subpoena. for 26 have operated i really think that how the rules function on subpoenas is the right way and if so i would urge my colleagues to vote against the resolution from the chair. we should operate under existing rules. this would allow the chair to he wouldpoenas as want, either with the ranking members agreement or by a committee vote. it is my understanding that my republican colleagues likely will support the resolution, so the week i offered an amendment. that amendment would grant the ranking member the same ability as the chair to issue the
subpoena on the topics listed in the chair's resolution. the debate was pending when we ended the market last week, so it will be up for further debate in a vote today. and i will have a few remarks clean that time comes. i would like to address the nomination of cory wilson to a mississippi seat on the fifth circuit. and i will be opposing judge wilson's nomination and i would like to briefly explain why. judge wilson has a record that if you look at it is far outside the mainstream on a number of critically important issues. he has expressed opposition to -- and toof lg workers rights and it took commonsense gun safety measures.
he has also made clear his opposition to the affordable care act, his passage he called "perverse and illegitimate." if judge wilson was to have his way, the aca would have been struck down by the supreme court. disastrous for the 20 million americans who gained coverage thanks to the aca command for the estimated 129 million nonelderly americans with a pre-existing condition, he would be denied coverage if the law were to be repealed. me, toard, at least for see how judge wilson could rule objectively on any case raising an issue of coverage under the affordable care act. and this is particularly troubling right now, when more americans, it just went up from 110,000, 112,000
americans has died from covid-19. and minority communities have been hit particularly hard. he also opposes voting rights and has been a strong proponent of voter id laws. claiming without any evidence of that "voter fraud happens." and that "voter id can work to help." and he has made demeaning statements about former obama, calling him king barack, patty and asmall -- "petty small and a fit throwing teenager." as of tuesday, the committee had received 18 letters or statements of opposition to judge wilson's nomination, from groups that include the naacp legal defense and education fund, and the congressional
black caucus. i would like mr. chairman to enter these letters into the record. i will read from a few. the congressional black caucus rights, "judge wilson has expressed a more support for than right wing areat ideology support for equal protection of the law, equal access to the ballot box, and established precedents with civil rights." this led the congressional black caucus to conclude the following, and i quote, "it should be clear if wilson is confirmed, he would not support and uphold the laws that support inclusion, diversity, equal rights and protection, and other long held civil rights protections, so important to all americans. but especially to african-americans."
that is from a letter of opposition dated may 18 of this year. the lawyers' committee for civil rights under law notes of the following, and i quote, "mr. wilson's record advocating against voting rights and access to health care, as well as his expressions of racial hostility toward barack obama, lead us to doubt his ability to serve as an impartial federal judge with an open mind on any civil rights issues impacting communities of color." that is from the lawyers' committee for civil rights on may 5 of this year. i will vote against judge wilson's nomination and i urge my colleagues to do the same. thank you very much. german graham: senator lee.
ator lee:awley: -- sen is this on? oh, my light did not work. thank you. i spoke on the subpoena issue last week. so i will keep my remarks today brief. i know that earlier this week several senators on this committee, led by senators booker and harris, introduced legislation to reform the way that our nation approaches policing. and i understand that senator scott is working on his own reform bill on behalf of the senate republicans. i actually think this committee would be better serving the american people today if we were focused squarely on the issue of racial injustice. i know that we have a hearing next week, but this moment our country needs more than words. i think they need more than a single hearing. i hope this committee will focus it's time and resources this
summer on this issue that is gripping the nation, and is in desperate need of our attention. specific to the subpoena authorization, i said before i think it is a low for this committee. even including the subpoena authorization i obtained 12 years ago in 2008, which saw a narrow set of torture related documents, and came after five years of bipartisan efforts and a number of republican senator saying, go forward, we just do not want to be involved. never before has a chairman of this committee sought a subpoena authorization without even attempting to work with the ranking member, certainly not the five years i did on that. chairmanore has a sought as subpoena authorization as a first resort, as opposed to a last resort. never has a chairman sought a
limitless authorization to subpoena what could be hundreds of individuals and millions, millions of pages of documents. and i do not think anyone of us with a straight face could say to members of the committee to go sit and read millions of pages of documents. it never has a chairman -- away the resources of this committee to pursue a partisan investigation after being prompted by a presidential campaign. the chairman last week stated the investigation is not linked to broader bipartisan efforts to reform our surveillance laws, and i do not doubt his word on that. i do not think that anybody reasonably believes that this investigation will uncover authorities that were not already undercover during the inspector general's nd 478tive investigation a
page report, which many of us have read. but the fact is, according to president trump, the two issues are linked. due to his apparent confusion about what has already been uncovered by the inspector general and how this body already came together to fix it, president trump does not want to sign a pfizer reform bill -- fisa reform bill until -- has concluded. some house republicans say they will support the bipartisan bill to pass the senate, then when they got that tweet from the president they reversed course and withheld support for the senate passed bill. not, itwe like it or appears as long as the chairman is conducting this investigation, critical reforms overwhelmingly approved by republicans and democrats in the senate, are on hold. that means there is some
noncontroversial -- such as wiretaps, that many of us have discussed, remain on authorized. now -- remain on authorized. now, whether you think this is purely political or not, it is a problem that because of it we say, well, we cannot go forward improvements that republicans and democrats in the senate overwhelmingly approved. feinsteinport senator and my other democratic senators as they offer amendments to make the subpoena authorization more balanced, and more likely to result in a fair investigation, but i firmly believe the committee has better things to do today, so i want the chairman to know that this may come as a great surprise to him, that i
will vote no on this authorization. and i will put into the record, statement, my wilson.g cory support whaty senator feinstein has said. but i do ask that you put that in. german graham: absolutely, without objection. >> are way now considering the feinstein amendment to your subpoena amendment? is that correct? chairman graham: yes. at is correct. >> chairman wilson? chairman graham: we will do that. we will address that intercourse. >> i have said my piece the last time we were together, so i will not repeat myself, but since then the judge -- in the flynn matter has come out and i would ask unanimous consent that that document be made part of the
record at this proceeding, with attention to pages 3-17, where he describes the underlying conduct of general flynn. chairman graham: without objection. i do not know if you are here before, but i am very interested in the flynn case. i think everybody here is. and you are. so that is a good thing. so when we get a resolution, i will call him in -- why did you drop this case, why did you need to change course? mr.if you want to call gleason or anybody else, we will do that. i think that would be good for the country. senator? chairman.nk you, mr. i want to join senator feinstein in her opposition to these subpoenas, as well as opposition to this judge. i will put my statements on the record. since you raised the hearing we will be having, which i am glad
we are having next week, i want to bring the committee's attention to a letter sent yesterday to doj inspector general michael horowitz. i have the letter here and i would like to enter it on the record. to put it on the record. it is for more than 1200 former justice officials across the country, and a cause on the inspector general to investigate attorney general william barr's role in the decision to use force, including tear gas and rubber bullets against peaceful protesters in lafayette square near the white house. these protesters were there to draw attention to the police killing of george floyd and to demand justice and an end to the use of excessive force against the black men and women in this country. i think we all know that this is an issue of critical importance. every senator in this room.
and i am glad the committee will hold a hearing next tuesday on the issue of police use of force. it is an important first step. yesterday, the ranking member, senator feinstein, joined by all of us on the side of the aisle, sent a letter asking that attorney william barr be asked to testify at this upcoming hearing. it is inconceivable we would move forward without hearing from him, after all it is the attorney general who sets justice department policy and oversight -- and oversees multiple agencies. he is the chief law enforcement officer of this country. so either at this hearing, or a hearing next week involving simply him, i believe we need to hear from him. among other things, the committee needs to hear from the attorney general about why the justice department appears to have abandoned a pattern and practice cases to examine systematic racial discrimination and policing, including the use
of force. during the obama administration, there were 25 of these investigations that were brought. had aeekend, after i letter with myself and others, asking for a pattern and practice investigation of the minneapolis police attorney barr was on "face the nation." when asked about this, he said that he did not think it was necessarily warranted in this case. colleagues if it is not , warranted in the case, in the video that you saw in minneapolis to have a pattern and practice investigation of this police department, what facts would warrant such an investigation? this trump administration justice department has undertaken only one investigation like this, and it was a unit of the springfield, massachusetts, police department. that is it. i ask you to join us in asking the attorney general when and where and why we would ever have a pattern and practice investigation if he does not believe it is justified in this case. us in askingu to join
the attorney general when and where and why we would ever have a pattern and practice investigation if he does not believe it is justified in this case. we await a formal answer from him. saidll i have is what he on a national news program. i will finish quickly. it is essential the committee hold an additional separate hearing with attorney general barr to examine the justice department's response to the protests that is raised in the letter to the doj. attorney general mart at the center of this decision to remove peaceful protesters from lafayette square using tear gas and rubber bullets in order for the president to have a photo op in front of the church waving a bible. inspector general horowitz should open an investigation among but it is also the responsibility of this committee to examine the federal governments response to
protesters as well as the deployment of federal law enforcement in washington, d.c., and the treatment of journalists covering the protests aired thank you, mr. chairman. sen. graham: thank you. >> i would like to make an opening statement about the subpoena hearing today and brief remarks about judge wilson and his candidacy. sen. graham: absolutely. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we are in a difficult and challenging moment for our nation with three different epidemics. i have spent the last few weeks listening to delaware events and americans expressing righteous anger over the brutal killing of george floyd and challenging our government to finally recognize and address systemic racism. the covid-19 pandemic has laid there inequalities in our health care system. i have listened to small
business owners suffering from the effects of the worst health and economic crises in our lifetime. appreciate this committee will hold a hearing on policing on tuesday and explore meaningful ways we can work together to respond to the epidemic of racism that is foundational to our modern challenges. this committee is at its best when we work in a bipartisan fashion to meet the demands of our constituents and provide readership and difficult moments like this. i fear today's actions deviate from those responsibilities. mr. chairman, i deeply appreciate and respect that you and i work together in a bipartisan fashion to ensure counsel mueller could complete his investigation without interference. i appreciate then senator grassley's assistance. it shows we can work together on difficult and divisive issues. it is that kind of bipartisan cooperation i wish we were
seeking today. instead we forge ahead with a subpoena authorization to reopen an investigation i think has been exhaustively investigated. rule nine is clear of subpoenas issued by the ranking member or a vote of the committee on each subpoena. in my view, the department of justice inspector general has already completed a 19 month investigation into the origins of the russia investigation that culminated with a 400 page report validating the investigation and concluding it was properly predicated. it found no evidence of political bias and nothing to contradict the 37 indictments coming guilty pleas, and convictions produced by a. it did find gravely concerning in the report to the pfizer court for carter page. this is not unique to the russia investigation. these defects are all too common across pfizer matters.
if the committee would like to focus on fisa reform, i welcome that conversation. this authorization will not fix system orhe fisa change the inspector general's conclusions. if i might speak to corey wilson and his record, i believe his statements to be demonstrations of extreme partisanship that make it clear he is unfit for the bench. his statements go well beyond mere disagreement. i understand a republican president will nominate candidates with different political views than mine. he has written that an intellectually honest impact is a rare sighting and that those who agree with him are real americans and others are not in that 20% of the population identifying as liberal has been shoveling chicken feed to the rest. also expressed a repeated formalto see the
removed. i will be voting no. thank you for giving me the opportunity to make an opening statement. sen. graham: absolutely. senator blumenthal. nthal: thank you for hearing is out in this meeting and scheduling a hearing next week on police practices, which should be our priority at this moment. of coreymination wilson to be a judge on one of our most distinct courts of appeal, not only is he unqualified by virtue of experience and other qualifications, he has been a steadfast opponent of the affordable care act at a time when we really need to be strengthening our health care system, not decimating it,
exactly a time when a stronger health care system is necessary pandemic.the ongoing corey wilson would decimate it. "react, he regrets that it tains an error of legitimacy -- legitimacy." on the issue of the subpoenas, this can say is that country is at a moment of reckoning. we are at a time when the nation is demanding revolutionary change in our police practices to heighten justice and eliminate racism. it is a classic opportunity for this committee to lead. i hope the hearing next week will be the beginning, but life
is a matter of priorities. if we devote our attention to this investigation involving the subpoena that the chairman is asking to do today and the power to issue the subpoenas, we are going to distract ourselves from that obligation and opportunity to reform our criminal justice racism to eliminate make police forces around the country more professional and to improve their training and recruiting practices. scottgnize that senator has yet to issue anything on paper, but that should not prevent us from moving forward right now at this moment to provide leadership on the judiciary committee, a place where that leadership traditionally has come from. on fisa reform, this subpoena list in no way
reflects that goal. thet is on litigating mueller report, the inspector the keyhas put to rest questions that may be raised. he has said that nothing in his passed out on any part of the mueller reports basic findings. that point was repeated in the testimony we took from rod rosenstein at the first of our hearings on this topic. and it will be repeated throughout our hearing. nothing we find as a result of this investigation will go farther than the inspector general's report, and nothing there passed out on the ultimate findings and conclusions of the mueller investigation, so i ask on the real task at hand, not just the pandemic,
, and theh crisis economic crisis where we can play a part, but on the reform to our law enforcement structure that is so vital. i will have a series of amendments, as will a number of my colleagues. thank you. senator romney. >> thank you, mr. chairman. sorry. can you hear me now? it's on now. i would like to speak to your subpoena motion, mr. chairman. our country is facing three crises, health, economic, and systemic racism and police violence. rather than doing something concrete about these crises,
this committee is asking for blanket subpoena authority to go over ground that has already been covered. the committee has spent the past two months ramming through anti-health nominees, justin , both and corey wilson totally against the affordable care act. don't tell me that they are suddenly going to change their views on the subject, especially from the safety of their lifetime appointments to the federal bench. each will have decades on the bench to push their ideological ideas. party's obsession with illuminating the aca cap explained with a seat in a problem with kicking millions of americans off their health care during the middle of a pandemic. for the past two weeks, this committee has devoted countless hours to chase after a conspiracy theory to undermine the fbi's investigation of a trump campaign tied to the russian government.
president trump has been desperately pushing this conspiracy theory in the hope that it will distract the american public from his that he, from the fact has failed to provide any form of effective leadership to guide this country through a deadly pandemic and that he has attacked these will protesters with tear gas or to buy his attorney general barr so that he can get a photo op in front of a church. he has threatened to use our military to dominate americans as they peacefully protest against systemic injustice and racism. accused asely 75-year-old peaceful protest are of -- protester of essentially deserving to be knocked down on the ground by police where he lay bleeding from his head. by this motion, this committee is giving help by abusing its power. the committee is asking us
to do is no different than the former judger that gleeson identified in his scathing review of the michael flynn case. he pointed out that the justice department had abdicated its responsibility to provide special treatment to favored friend and political ally of the president. conspiracytrumps theories is not the job of the senate judiciary committee. last week, the chair kept talking about the fisa court's stunning rebuke of the fbi as basis for unilateral subpoena powers. issued a report directing the doj to report how fisa applications are complete and accurate. it was a rare rebuke. the chair stated last week that fisa, not trying to fix
what we are actually doing is undermining the investigation into the trump campaign's ties to russian election interference. this ground has been covered before by the mueller investigation and the ig report. both of which were nearly 500 pages each. while millions of americans are unemployed, millions are lining up for food and waiting for hours, and millions more children are going hungry in trumps america. this committee wants to waste taxpayer money chasing the presidents conspiracy theories. spends ahis committee fraction that house republicans did in investigating hillary clinton, we are still talking hundreds of thousands of dollars. after spending nearly $7 million house payer money, the committee on benghazi led by republicans hellbent on finding
something to blame on hillary clinton found no evidence of wrongdoing by her. is this the path this committee is on, wasting taxpayer money? subpoenaing 53 individuals named in the subpoena authorization request in addition to anyone identified in the inspector general's report involving more than 100 witnesses and anyone involved in the cross wire hurricane investigation. are we prepared to tell the american people how much time and money will be spent going down this radical to help the president? i strongly object to the subpoena motion and will not support it. i have some comments regarding corey wilson that i will hold until we get to his nomination. thank you, mr. chairman. sen. graham: yes, ma'am. senator booker. booker: i have a lot of
well words here that i would like to submit for the record and spare my colleagues. i do want to say that there were a lot of well said words, passion on both sides about the investigation you said is going to get done the matter what. there are constitutional principles that were talked abuses, fbisa abuses, a lot of things that happened over a year ago that we want to investigate. that is obviously going forward. no eloquence on the side of the aisle will stop that. i ask you to apply that same standard to something that is more immediate and urgent. my words are probably not as compelling as the words of some of the most respected generals in our country right now who have been speaking towards what happened in lafayette park and speaking to it as it is a constitutional stress test. you have been very sympathetic and have worked with me on another moment that i thought could be a constitutional stress test when i was worried about the firing of muleller.
you recognized even then that i get it, and i will sit down and work with you on something. park, have in lafayette which is a sacred area, the first protest in front of the white house done by alice paul from new jersey, is suffragette, who was arrested in front of the white house for protesting peacefully. she went on a hunger strike, and they forced tubes down her throat, assaulted her constitutional right and i think tortured her. since then, we have evolved that space to being sacred. it is a space where people come and protest democratic and republican presidents. you seek second amendment rights protesters, so-called right to life protesters. i love coming to the capital because this is sacred ground where people come to protest, which i think is one of the most sacred rights, the right to
petition your government, to peacefully protest. what we saw in lafayette park under this president was an affront to those ideals and principles. don't take my word for it. we could go through the numbers of people that are respected on both sides of the aisle who are now saying that. my concern is that we in this committee applying the standard i heard last week that you and i have worked together on that this is a moment that we are facing a constitutional stress test yet again. to not question that, to not have a hearing on it, to be silent, it makes me worry about what the next 150 days in america are going to be. people can say i am alarmist, but i worry we are heading into a serious constitutional stress test for this country with deeper divides than we could possibly find ourselves with
mass protests in november on the streets. i don't know where they might come from. i'm not saying this is probable. i'm saying that i am worried that we could be heading into a moment in american history where the ideals and principles that are written on these sacred documents are only as good as the people's commitment to them. of ais the first warning constitutional stress test, the president that did things that i know in good faith shocked the conscience of people on both sides of the aisle. we here at general mattis coming warnings about the constitution and our principles. stop here as a committee and hold some kind of hearing -- i don't care if it is a discussion amongst all of us
in a room with nobody else willd, i think we have failed. it is an important moment in american history to speak up and use our wisdom as was envisioned by the founders that this senate would be a cooling place for sober reflection and introspection, a deliberative body. if we fail right now, we will tumble further towards what i believe can be a challenging time were all of us will be called not to act as politicians but as patriots to defend the principles and ideals of this country against the passions of others. thank you. sen. harris: this week, senator booker and i just the justice in policing act with more than 200 cosponsors. this is a sweeping and copperheads of bill that would
improve our ability to hold police accountable for unlawful killings. on tuesday, george floyd was laid to rest in houston, texas, policee was murdered by in minnesota. this committee should honor his memory. and recognize the significance of his death by taking up the justice in policing act. instead, the committee is advancing a judicial nominee with an anti-civil rights record. his record is an antithesis of what the american people are marching for in demanding right now. has a longn history of opposition to voting rights and mississippi. in 2011, he dismissed concerns of a member of the naacp chapter in mississippi that -- pop top unless you count the dead vote. in june 2013, judge wilson
described former attorney general holder as "whining that noter id laws are a illegitimate effort." this is problematic at this especially given this week when we saw voter suppression in the state of georgia, including limited ballots, voting machines down, and hours long lines in black and brown communities. judge cory wilson should not be confirmed to this judicial vacancy at this moment in our history. as the naacp wrote in its letter of opposition, it would be a particular affront to the people of mississippi, a population african-americans, to have judge wilson reside
overreside voting rights cases in that district. you know, nobody knows who is going to be in the minority and in the majority next year. this amendment would add a single phrase to the end of the fourth line, the phrase would rankinghorizes its member after consulting with the chairman to issue subpoenas. this would give the minority the opportunity, if there is a controversial hearing, to see that they have a chance to present their case by subpoenaing their witness. if you do not grant this, you are going to skew future hearings. it is very concerning to me. we could be in the majority.
i would not want to do that to the minority. i think you want to hear both sides in a hearing. there are no names mentioned into it. amendment i simple think it is a really basic fairness. otherwise you give total control to the majority, and the minority cannot subpoena a witness. my case rests. >> mr. chairman, could i just ask as a matter of clarification, i know we are talking about subpoenas, which are ordinarily used for witnesses who do not voluntarily appear. nothing we are doing today changes the judiciary committee rules, which entitled the minority to have witnesses during a hearing as well, do they? sen. graham: no. >> so any hearing we have involving a subpoena witness,
the minority would have the right to call on a voluntary basis any witness they choose. [indistinct conversations] yes, and i would work with the minority on any subpoena. sen. feinstein: if something comes up and the minority wants to call a witness, the minority should be able to call a witness. this would prevent that because the majority would have the sole power and who knows what happens in the future? this does not affect the present, but it affects the future. >> senator, if i could say, i don't think that is correct. we are just talking about subpoenaing witnesses. we are not talking about the right of the minority. sen. feinstein: you are right. it is a subpoena. >> they could appear on a voluntary basis. the chairman said he would work with you to subpoena them if that were necessary. sen. graham: if i could, i know
we all have other things to do. this is important to me. i appreciate everybody having their say about judge wilson. i find myself in a position where i think we need to look long and hard about how the mueller investigation got off the rails. you may not be interested, but i want to know why mr. barnett on fieldy 4 at the fbi office said let's drop flynn from crossfire hurricane, and weiss struck said no. i want to know why sell you did not know that flynn was being surveilled by the outgoing administration. horwitz did a great job, but he did not answer basic questions. said rosenstein, who do we blame?
senator kennedy said, we are going to blame this on some junior g-man or women. here is what none of you can answer, when the russian source came into the fbi in january and submitted to a three-day interview, he was also interviewed in march and may, this man invited all the information to christopher steele that resulted in the steele dossier that was outcome determinative in getting a warrant against carter page, an american citizen associated with the trump campaign. this committee is not going to sit on the sidelines and move on. those forknow to people who interviewed the source in january, did you tell anybody? because you had a duty to the court. if you don't believe me, listen to the court. the fbi handling of the carter page applications as portrayed in the oig report was antithetical to the heightened
duty to candor described above. the frequency with which representations made by fbi personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession in which they would tell information detrimental to their case calls into question whether other fbintained in applications is reliable. fisatz looked at other applications. we are talking about consciously withholding exculpatory information from the court. you are going to have a hard time convincing me that these four people sat in interviews for days and found out their case crumbled and never told anybody. maybe that is true. if that is true, they need to be fired. they need to be disciplined. anybody that was told about the unreliability of the dossier and
continued to use it, they are good candidates to go to jail or lose their job. nobody on this committee can answer that question because the warrant application when carter page was renewed in april and june, months after the underlying document necessary to get the warrant had completely collapsed. we are going to find out about that. if there is nothing there, i will have egg on my face. i promise the american people, we are going to get to why everybody ran stop signs all the time, and maybe it is four people in the bottom of the basement, maybe not. we will soon find out. as to the process, it is clear to me that you all have a different view of this. we had bipartisanship that mueller should be able to look at what happened. there seems to be no desire to look at how mueller got so off script. mr. horwitz did a good job, but
he did not answer any of the questions i am talking about. i went to the toolbox and found leahyation where senator gave to himself the powers i'm trying to give unto me. you used it not in a bad way. every republican voted against it, like think you can sort of -- but i think you can sort of work your way through the problem. was it for political reasons? i don't know. we will hear the doj, and we will hear from mr. gleason. if you want somebody to tell us the mueller report was on the up and up and this is nothing, you can call mr. mueller or his designee. i have no desire to deny you the chance to tell the other side of the story. i'm intent on making sure this never happens again. if it can happen to a republican, it can happen to a democrat.
sen. leahy: the senator, if i might be allowed to speak for a moment, the senator has mentioned me. i would point out again that the subpoena i issued was a very limited matter. we had five years of negotiation on it. was quiet acknowledgment by a number of republicans, including the then ranking member to go ahead and do it. we are not going to raise any more questions. scope,a very limited in and it was a question on torture that everybody in the senate wanted to know. we keep talking about the surveillance of flynn. am i mistaken when i read that the surveillance was of the russian ambassador kislyak? flynn wasrveillance,
seen, but that is because they were surveilling kislyak, and it became an issue after general flynn lied to vice president by many in the white house. he lied to vice president pence about those meetings, and that led to a number of things, but the surveillance was of ambassador kislyak. i'm not going to go into some of the classified matters, but the chairman is aware of them. and i'm not correct? sen. graham: you are correct that the intercept was based on survey link mr. kislyak, but there was a counterintelligence investigation opened up against mr. flynn in 2016, and on january 4, all the experts recommended dropping general flynn from crossfire hurricane. he was actually being surveilled
all the way back to 2016, suspected of working with russians during the trump campaign. the fbi made the decision january 4, the experts said there is no there there. sen. leahy: he lied to vice president pence? sen. graham: we will figure all of that out. we have not heard testimony in this committee on that. that i asked mr. rosenstein last week that i did not get a straight answer to is whether the fbi was surveilling and intercepting general flynn's communication. there is an inference one can draw because we know from the unmasking's that there was not a request of the conversation that became part of all the controversy, i think december
26. surveillance of kislyak, then flynn's name would have been redacted and required unmasking. there was not an unmasking request for that conversation. that raises the inference that this was an fbi intercept and not a cia intercept. we do not know that because nobody has answered that question. i think senator leahy does a good job of pointing out the sorts of questions this committee needs to get an answer to. was the obama admin is patient targeting of three-star general retired and the incoming national security advisor of the incoming president? sen. leahy: did he lie to vice president pence? >> if i can go back to process for just a moment and in response to senator cornyn's point and your answer to it.
i appreciate very much that they oficiary committee tradition a minority witness at a hearing will be honored. thank you. that is good. when you're dealing with an issue like this in which witness preparation and investigation are important, it is also important whether the subpoena process that you are imposing on this committee today is also going to be treated fairly. will the minority be able to see documents that are provided pursuant to subpoenas? will we be assured that no member or no staff member of this committee will be communicating and engaging with the trump campaign about the direction of this? can we be assured that documents and witnesses provided pursuant to the subpoena are not going to be provided to the trump campaign? there are some pretty basic guidelines that need to be
nailed down. that is not an answer. i think it would be reassuring to me to know that no member of this committee is going to be in communication with the trump campaign and wheeling and dealing with them about this investigation. will i have equal rights to witnesses and documents, that there will not be back channels with the trump campaign. that is basic legislative investigation rules 101. that is where we need to nail this down. nobody asked me when i supported the mueller investigation these questions. i assure you, we are not going to be deterred. if we have to do it by ourselves, we will do it by ourselves. we are going to get questions answered like senator cruz asked. i want to know why these counterintelligence investigations were opened to begin with and why they continued. somebody needs to be held
accountable for what happened here. we are going to be in the accountability business. attorney general barr will come before this committee, and he will testify about his job as attorney general regarding oversight. you can ask him whatever you want to ask him about. we are going to go forward. it is clear to me i have to do this this way if i want to get to the bottom of what happened. i regret it, but we are where we are. i promise you will have your say. l.e clerk will call the role sen. feinstein: if i may have a moment before the roll. this ties the hands of the minority in any serious investigation. they do not have the authority to subpoena a witness. i never thought we would reach this. it would be a
collaborative process, but you are trying to stop me and doing something i think the country needs to do. you are not going to stop me. we are going to move on. the clerk will call the roll. mr. lee. sen. lee: no. >> mr. cruz. >> no. >> mr. holly. >> no. tillis. >> no. >> ms. earnst. >> no. >> mrs. blackburn. >> no. >> ms. feinstein. >> naye. >> ms. clover char. >> aye. >> mr. coons.
>> aye. >> ms. hirono. >> aye. >> mr. booker. >> aye. >> mr. chairman. >> no. >> 10 yeas, 12 nays. en. graham: the amendment is not agreed to. the clerk will distribute the amendment. >> i think it is available for distribution. is it? i think we have it electronically. >> it has been distributed. this amendment expresses the sense of the committee regarding the constitutional rights of american citizens to peaceably assemble. witnessed the next ordinary act.
federal law enforcement attacked peaceful demonstrators outside the white house. some say it was tear gas, others say it was pepper gas, but they were gassed, and rubber bullets were shot at them at the direction of attorney general liam bar. according to the press reports, the assault began with law enforcement kneeling, not to express solidarity with antiracism efforts, as we have seen with some police officers around the country, they were toeling to put on gas masks protect themselves from the weapons they were about to fire at peaceful demonstrators. as soon as that was done, the president marched from the white house across lafayette square to st. john's episcopal church. the attorney general and secretary of defense and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff followed. a rare display of the might of the american government. what was the battleground that drew this show of force? the peaceful gathering of americans raising their voices
asking this country to stop racism. unfortunately, these peaceful demonstrators got in the way of a president on his way to a photo op. attorney general barr said he wanted to dominate the streets. he redirected personnel from the fbi, bureau of prisons, u.s. marshal service, atf, ice, and other agencies away from their normal duties to participate in this attack on lafayette square. what jim mattis said about this action. know we are better than the abuse of executive authority we witnessed at lafayette square. we must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our constitution." at this critical moment, one
would expect the senate judiciary committee to stand up and speak up, to exercise our oversight duties over the attorney general and department whyustice, to explain protesters were attacked by federal law enforcement officers . the incidence of police -- instead as we have learned, the chairman and majority are determined that this historic and distinguished committee will instead focus on the mueller investigation into russia's 2016 election interference. the streets of america and the fire, figuratively, with the passion people feel for
justice. we are in the midst of a pandemic. we know the state of the economy, and yet we are going to do the bidding of the president can which may be of some value to him during his reelection campaign. it is time to get back to basics. you have said yourself, someone needs to be held accountable. i offer this amendment to your motion in the hope that we can return to the conversation and the committee's attention to the very real issues our country is facing. at the least, we should go on record in defense of the constitutional rights of all americans to peaceably assemble. sen. graham: thank you. anyone else? i will move to table because it is not related to the underlying subject matter. we will have hearings about race and justice and the conduct of the department about a variety of things in due course. i moved to table.
>> can i make a brief,? sen. graham: absolutely. >> senator durbin, the substance on lafayette park i agree with. the move to condemn the attorney general is too much. thank you. >> mr. grassley. >> aye. >> mr. cornyn. >> aye by proxy. >> mr. lee. >> aye. >> mr. cruz. >> aye. >> mr. holly. >> aye. >> mr. tillis. >> aye. >> ms. earnst. >> aye. >> mr. kennedy. >> aye. >> ms. blackburn. >> aye. >> mr. durbin. no. >> ms. klobuchar.
to have this committee here from jared kushner. if this committee is serious about understanding the crossfire hurricane investigation, we need to hear from him. we know that he was involved in 20 16 meeting at trump tower, where he and donald trump, jr. met with a russian attorney expecting to receive political dirt on hillary clinton from the russian government as part of russia and its governments support for mr. trump. this committee and a bipartisan effort with then chairman grassley and senator feinstein try to obtain a voluntary interview from mr. krishna, but he refused. the committee sought documents from wikileaks regarding a russian dinner invite, but jared
kushner refused to turn over those documents. my amendment would aim to finish what this committee sought to do in 2017. it would require subpoenas to be issued to obtain documents and testimony from mr. christian. sen. graham: thank you. senator grassley. grassley: i would like to give some rebuttal to some of the things that have been said based on some of the things i have been involved in that have involved subpoenas. i have long supported congresses constitutional mandate to conduct constitutional oversight .f both parties i voted with senator specter to -- i even supported the contempt resolution against two
of its witnesses. i will support this authorization so that the chairman can effectively continue his oversight, and i think my remarks also applied to hirono.dment by senator during my time as chairman, the committee investigated alleged collusion between the trump campaign and the russians, including the june 9, 2016 meeting at trump tower. committee staff interviewed five individuals who participated in that meeting, including the presidents son, and collected documents from several others involved. at the ranking member's request, the committee interviewed an additional six individuals and reviewed nearly 1000 pages of additional documents that they provided. this group included advisors to the trump campaign and the
transition team as well as a business associate of the president. i subpoenaed paul manafort with the ranking member agreement to appear at a hearing and provide testimony. instead of publicly testifying, manafort agreed to an interview with my and ranking member feinstein's staff. the ranking member's staff refused to interview him and objected to my staff doing so without them. the ranking member feinstein changed her position and wanted to release manafort from a hearing subpoena and invitation on the eve of the hearing. we did not interview manafort. on march 2018, i made 2500 pages of transcripts, statements, and exhibits from the committee's trump tower investigation public. recordsittee reviewed
for manafort, michael cohen, ann kushner,early -- and over 30,000 pages of documents supplied by the trump campaign and 180,000 pages from the transition team. the committee has never received any emails from the democratic national committee or clinton campaign even though we repeatedly asked for them. the ranking member would not support subpoenas of those. the ranking member also did not support a subpoena for fusion gps records. we received tens of thousands of blank pages and unresponsive material from fusion. the only way to get compliance was through a subpoena that never happened. staff received multiple briefings from technology companies pertaining to the russian influence campaign and received tens of thousands of pages of related material that
they supplied. during the course of its russia investigation, the committee held a hearing on foreign agents registration act oversight, submitted countless oversight requests to federal agencies and the special counsel office and reviewed classified documents produced by the state department , fbi, and intelligence community. shred oft find a evidence to support the russia collusion narrative. we found a lot of evidence that there were problems with the ways the fbi conducted its investigation, and that is based on roughly four years of work. -- that is where the unanswered questions still are, and i am glad that the focus we are now taking his legitimate -- taking is legitimate and right.
the subpoena authorization is right for a vote. during the course of inquiry, we found the only real collusion that took place was between the democratic national committee, clinton campaigns, and russian officials. the dnc and clinton campaign hired fusion gps, which hired christopher steele. steel rated his dossier which was based on russian sources. some of those sources supported clinton. footnoteseclassified from the inspector general report, the intelligence reports indicate information contained within the dossier was the product of russian disinformation. that takes the question, what did the clinton campaign know about the dossier, and when did they know it? what did hillary clinton know about the dossier and when did she know it? do notcratic colleagues
seem interested in finding answers to those questions even though the steele dossier is the only real evidence of russian collusion with presidential campaign, and it happens to be the clinton campaign. i would like to insert into the record a complaint filed by the campaign legal center before the federal elections commission. the complaint states that the dnc and clinton campaign wrongfully reported millions of dollars in payments to law firms and legal services when some of those payments were for fusion steele their work with against trump. as you will all recall, mark alias, one of clinton's lawyers, publicly denied any involvement with the steele dossier, which is false.
sen. graham: the amendment is not agreed to. senator whitehouse. chairman, iuse: mr. am going to call up but not ask for a vote on amendment sil-2 0661. just to reinforce my point made at the last meeting about the selective enthusiasm of this committee for getting to the and what things appears to be a policy at the department of justice of refusing to answer committee member's letters and questions for the record. that is a policy at the department that appears to be
nature.san in republican questions were ignored as well as democratic questions. i think we had 17 hearings to which we have had no qfr responses. a lot of these were pretty touchy things, like the apparently fake to line -- tip in theat the fbi set up kavanaugh hearings for refused to look at any results from. i think there's a lot that is of interest here. i have asked for subpoena authority to pursue where there were letters unanswered and qfrs unanswered, the answers to those unanswered letters and qfr's. the chairman has graciously deputyto meet with the attorney general and myself to go through this sad litany of
unanswered questions to try to figure out where the policy came from and not to answer them and to embark on a process for getting answers to those unanswered questions, whether by letter or qfr. given the status of that, i am not going to seek a vote on that right now. if that process breaks down, if we get told to pound sand by the deputy attorney general, if the fbi and department of justice continue their policy of nonresponsiveness and ignoring answers and continue to throw this departments questions into i will pursue this further, and i appreciate the chairman's support so far for this inquiry. sen. graham: absolutely. blumenthal,, senator kaine's. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i call up the amendment relating to paul manafort.
as i have made clear, i think this investigation is not this most urgent requirement right now at a time when we are facing three other crises. if we are going to conduct an investigation one year after the mueller report concluded, we should examine all the facts. i am moving we should investigate paul manafort, the trump campaign chairman with a long history of working with russian oligarchs and politicians. despite having considerable debts with russian politicians workd, he volunteered to for the trump campaign for free. expectation that the data would be shared with pigarchs allied closely with
utin. hisfort briefed him on campaign. manafort identified later as michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania, and minnesota. manafort also took part in the june 9, 2016, trump tower meeting in which russian representatives offered to provide incriminating documents on secretary clinton. lying to investigators, he is currently serving out his prison sentence in home confinement. he was subpoenaed in 2017 but did not appear due to his pending indictment. now that his criminal cases have run their course, we should hear from him. i'm confident we could arrange for the production of relevant documents and sworn testimony even while mr. manafort serves out his time at home.
to whatham: i refer senator grassley said. sen. feinstein: on the amendment, as i understand it, the committee has never heard from manafort emma who has had numerous contacts with individuals linked to the russian government, including olympic, who has ties to russian intelligence and an oligarch with ties to putin. lied to the special counsel's office and took steps to conceal evidence, leaving unanswered questions about his conduct that we believe the committee should explore. if we go back to the russia investigation, i think it is our view that all people who have relevant information should be heard.
sen. graham: the amendment is not agreed to. i think senator blumenthal. blumenthal: thank you, mr. chairman. there are few individuals whose testimony would be more relevant to this so-called investigation then rudy giuliani. i would like to call up 3, which would2052 require a subpoena for mr. giuliani. he was a campaign surrogate in 2016. he became the president's personal lawyer. any privilege has been long ago waived. he has a lot of information, some of it he has made public, a lot of it not. thiscould bare light on investigation. i could go into details on what he has said publicly, but i am going to avoid it in the
interests of time and simply move the amendment. i also wish to be recorded as an e.e on the previous vot sen. graham: without objection. enthal: i asked for rudy giuliani to be subpoenaed. sen. graham: i would urge my colleagues to say no because that is not what we are looking into. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]
sen. feinstein: excuse me, aye. clerk: the vote is 10 yays to 12 nays. sen. graham: the amendment is not agreed to. senator klobuchar. sen. klobuchar: mr. chairman, just trying to. yeah. stop working. there we go. i would like to offer my amendment. this amendment will authorize and direct the chairman after consulting with the ranking member to issue a subpoena for
documents and communications and testimony from konstantin kilimnik. committee is going to investigate the people who are doing their jobs to protect our national security, we should who here from the russians were in the middle of russia's interactions with the trump campaign. from the special counsel's k is a russiani national who worked with paul manafort in ukraine, and according to the fbi, he has ties to russian intelligence. that is page 133 of volume one of the report. according to the special counsel investigation, paul manafort and rick gates regularly provided internal trump campaign polling data with the exception that the data should be shared with oligarch pat scott, and on
august 2, 2016, manafort and kilimnik had dinner where they states,d "battleground which manafort identified as michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania, and minnesota." that would be my home state. when it is your state and you hear these guys are talking about this to russian intelligence, people with ties to russian intelligence, you get pretty concerned. k was indicted by the special counsel for obstruction of justice, but the special counsel was not able to gather evidence on what he did with the polling data. you do not need to be from my state or michigan or wisconsin or pennsylvania to want to get to the bottom of what happened. the least we could do as part of any further investigation into the 2016 election and into our
country's interference, what happened with the interference in our election, the least we could do is hear from this witness. wille all of my colleagues support this amendment, and i ask for a rollcall vote. will refer to what senator presley said about the committee's activities with regards to russia. i would urge de novo. -- urge a no vote. [roll call]
clerk: mr. chairman, the vote is 10 yays, 12 nays. sen. graham: the amendment is not agreed to. senator durbin. durbin: this amendment authorizes the chairman after consulting the ranking member to consider testimony for michael: regarding 2016, vice president in the trump administration and personal attorney to candidate trump. he was heavily involved in the efforts to build a trump tower in moscow for which candidate trump had signed a letter of intent in the fall of 2015. according to the mueller report, hen pursued the trump
tower moscow project on behalf of candidate trump. of 2016, cohen communicated with the deputy chief of staff of putative regarding the trump tower moscow project. according to the mueller report during the summer of 2016, he recalled that candidate trump publicly claimed that he had nothing to do with russia and shortly afterwards privately checked with michael cohen on the status of the trump tower moscow project. he has pled guilty to fraud and making false statements to congress on his work regarding the trump tower moscow project. he is currently sentenced to home confinement. we could certainly seek his testimony remotely. if this committee is going to
reinvestigate whether crossfire hurricane and the mueller investigation work factually predicated, why would you not call michael cohen? remember what the attorney general said, utterly baseless. utterly baseless. his words. we have given you opportunities and will continue to this morning to bring in relevant witnesses. the fact that you are turning down every single relevant witness tells us and the world that this is an irrelevant investigation. it is not relevant to the issues of the moment and is certainly not relevant when it comes to calling material witnesses, which any normal prosecutor would call. you get a chance now to bring in michael cohen and learn what the moscow project for donald trump was all about. sen. graham: for two and a half years, this country went through n experience involving the 2016
clerk: mr. chairman, the vote is 10 yays, 12 nays. sen. graham: the amendment fails. senator durbin, senator harris, do you have an amendment? sen. harris: thank you. i like to offer an amendment to this subpoena authorization. mr. chairman, i would like to speak on the amendment on behalf of myself and senator booker. as has been mentioned several times, there were peaceful demonstrators gathered in front of the white house on june 1 to protest the murder of george floyd and were violently forced out of that area by federal law enforcement. it was reported that attorney
general barr ordered their forceful removal. the protection of civil rights and liberties falls within this committee's jurisdiction. it is essential that we investigate the attorney general's role and reason for authorizing the use of force against americans exercising their first amendment rights, which is why on behalf of myself and senator booker i am offering this amendment to the chairman may not issue any subpoenas under the authority of this motion until the committee has conducted a hearing to investigate the conduct of attorney general barr on june 1, 2020. it bears note that secretary of defense mattis last week in reaction to that incident said, "we must reject and hold accountable those in office who. would make a mockery of our constitution." i request a roll call on my
amendment. sen. graham: i would say the committee is moving forward in a recent manner regarding the mueller report and next week regarding the problems facing the country. sen. feinstein: i wanted you to speak louder. pose theham: i op amendment by tabling "is not relevant -- tabling because it is not relevant the clerk will call the roll. clerk: mr. grassley. grassley: no. sen. graham: no, vote aye. sen. grassley aye. call]
sen. graham: the amendment is tabled. senator durham. havedurham: i only requests for five more witnesses the majority does not want to hear from. sen. graham: do you want to do them together? sen. durham: i do not. -- issue a subpoena for documents, committee k's and testimony from rick gates regarding the matters of the chairman's investigation. mr. gates was a trump campaign defeated chairman and longtime associate of paul manafort, another person you don't want to hear from. according to the mueller report, metaphor instructed rick gates as deputy on the campaign and longtime employee to provide kilimnik with updates on the trump campaign including internal polling data, volume
one, page 129 of the mueller report. gates did so on numerous occasions. this report notes quote, gaetz suspected that kilimnik was a spy, a view he shared with manafort. konstantinfers to kilimnik, a russian national who worked with paul manafort in ukraine and the fbi assessed to have ties with russian intelligence. the mullah report also includes a heavily redacted section discussing can occasions between canada trump and gates about releases by wikileaks including a conversation in which the report says, drunk -- trump told gaetz that more releases of damaging information would be coming. you can find that statement in volume one, page 154. for makingndicted false statements against the united states.
sen. durham: george papadopoulos. -- after consulting with the ranking member to issue a subpoena for documents, can occasions and testimony regarding matters in the chairman's investigation. papadopoulos was a foreign policy adviser to the trump campaign and 2016. the mueller report discusses how papadopoulos was sold on april 25, 2016 -- 2016 that a london-based professor with russian ties had obtained dirt on clinton in the form of thousands of emails. papadopoulos mentioned this to australian officials on may 6, 2016, and they contacted the fbi in july 2016, fronting the fbi to open its counterintelligence investigation on july 31, 2016. according to the mueller report, during a march 31 trump campaign
meeting, papadopoulos quote, told the group he had learned through his contacts in london that putin wanted to meet with canada trump and these connections could help arrange the meeting. the mueller report, several witnesses stated trump was interested and receptive to the idea of meeting with putin. papadopoulos worked for several with two russian nationals to arrange a meeting between the trump campaign and the russian government, though the meeting did not take place. papadopoulos pled guilty to and hasalse statements completed his sentence. if this committee truly wants to investigate whether crossfire hurricane and the mueller investigation were factually predicated as opposed to some cooked in-house political job, why wouldn't you call irrelevant witness like mr. papadopoulos? sen. graham: for two and a half team, mr. mueller and his
looked at everything and everybody. not one person has been prosecuted in the trump world for colluding with the russians. mr. papadopoulos got a two week sentence, about misstating, allegedly lying about when he met a particular person. if we are going to have a hearing, we have to be allowed to produce evidence. as i have -- as i understand this, george papadopoulos was a member of the trump campaign in july of 2016. he told an australian official that the russians had dirt on hillary clinton in the form of thousands of emails, and that they were willing to release these emails to help trump and hurt clinton. australia shared this information with the fbi, which opened crossfire hurricane, based on it.
there are significant questions outstanding about how papadopoulos learned that the russians had hillary clinton's emails. why wouldn't you want the committee to have access to this information, in order to see the full extent surrounding the opening of crossfire hurricane? if we are going to do investigations, we have to allow people to bring in evidence. i don't understand why people would vote no on this. thank you. sen. graham: i appreciate that. i want to make this clear. all of these people we are talking about had their lives turned upside down, being surveilled by their own on tape saying i did not work with the russians, i did not collude with the russians.
not agreed to. member durham, how many more do you have? sen. durham: i have two left, maybe three. flynn. this amendment authorizes the chairman after consulting with the ranking member to submit subpoenas for documents, communications and testimony a campaignl flynn, advisor to the trump campaign in 20 16, later became national security advisor for a brief period. in addition to commit occasions with the russians during the transition, which he lied about and was convicted of, -- defined hillary clinton's deleted emails on july 27, 2016. quote, flynn contacted multiple people in an effort to obtain the emails. remember that? trump said publicly, i invite the russians to go looking for hillary z males in general flynn
believed him. flynn's contacts included a russian fundraiser in contact with russian hackers. guilty to making false statements not once but twice regarding his commit occasions with the russian ambassador during the transition. controversially, the justice department has tried to drop its prosecution and as we all know, the matter is currently pending before a d.c. district judge. we have talked summit at times about whether general flynn was treated properly. why wouldn't we want him before the jennet to do -- the senate judiciary committee to tell his story? if this committee truly wants to investigate whether crossfire hurricane and the mueller investigation or factually predicated, we should hear from michael flynn. sen. graham: i oppose the amendment. the clerk will call the role. >> i see what is happening here. you can have an investigation, but you won't call witnesses. michael flynn was trump's
national security advisor in january and february of 2017. later that year, he pled guilty to lying to the fbi about his interactions with the russian ambassador. last month, the justice department moved to dismiss his case, despite overwhelming evidence that flynn did knowingly mislead the fbi. why wouldn't we want him to come before a committee if we are going to do an investigation and clear this up, one way or another? sen. graham: we will hear from the department of justice about their decision, and you can call any witness you would like to call this an appropriate. the clerk will call the role. [roll call vote]
a political commentator affiliated with the trump campaign quote, was involved in efforts to coordinate with wikileaks and a son -- and assange. he was confirmed as person one in roger stone's indictment that discusses commit occasions between he and stone discussing plans wikileaks email releases. i believe this -- if this committee is truly going to have an honest investigation and re-whether crossfire hurricane and the mueller report were factually predicated, we should hear from mr. corsi. >> mr. chairman, if i may. i think senator durbin is absolute correct. i don't understand how we can do an investigation if you are not going to be able to get any of the evidence. allows the chairman or urges the chairman or directs the chairman after consulting
with the ranking member to issue a subpoena for documents and communications and testimony at a hearing or deposition related to any aforementioned matter. i don't understand why the other side would want an investigation, and yet prevent the acquisition of material. sen. graham: with all due respect, i don't understand why we would want to do the mother investigation all over again -- the mother investigation all over again -- the mueller investigation all over again. i'm sorry it didn't turn out the way people liked, but it is behind us and now we will look at what happened and the misconduct involved and hold people accountable. the clerk will call the role. [roll call vote]
[roll call vote] [roll call vote] sen. graham: the amendment does not agreed to. >> mr. chairman, my last amendment of relevant witnesses, that the committee does not want to hear from, relates to roger stone. this amendment would authorize the chairman to subpoena roger stone in addition to the 53 names already on the chairman's
list, he is of course well-known, and advisor to the trump campaign, and a long time associate of paul manafort. much of the information is redacted, but his contacts during campaign has been widely reported. in 2019, and is expected to report to prison at the end of june. i want to go back to the point made repeatedly bicep -- by senator feinstein. you bring legitimate, in witnesses who are relevant. you decide whether their testimonies credible. you put it in the record so we have a complete record, for those who agree or disagree with the investigation, give each an equal opportunity to come forward and produce evidence that's relevant to the investigation. to see the investigation is really a center of this and then to delete -- to ignore every predicate is to call into question whether this is a
credible exercise. when we brought paul manafort in front of the committee, the chairman said he was in fbi agent. if that's the standard, you will not have 53 witnesses. there are many people on the chairman's list that are not fbi agents. take a look. i would ask that roger stone be brought before this committee. at least be subject to subpoena. sen. graham: senator feinstein, which like to say something? howon't known: we can have an investigation and not allow the collection of applicable materials. that's exactly what senator durbin is asking. the committee never interviewed, or received documents from stone , who is a key figure in the russian investigation, special
counsel mueller found that stone sought out advanced knowledge of wikileaks plan to release hillary clinton's emails and brief trump on what he learned. graham is going to insist on revisiting, the committee should hear from all individuals with relevant and may show, clearly this is relevant. if you don't allow it you stack the hearing. i don't understand what's happening. senator durbin's motions are all valid. you could be for and stop any witness for testifying and that appears to be what's going on. sen. graham: from my point of view it appears that you want to talk about everything except what we should be talking about. mr. mueller had carte blanche authority to look at everything you have talked about. mr. stone, and not one person has been prosecuted for
colluding with the russians. mccabe, their day is coming. did you know the russian sub source? how could you not have known? what kind of system do we have at the fbi when the most high-profile investigation of a sitting president, what system is there over there regarding investigation? how could it be possible that the people of the bottom of the basement was told the case fell apart and people had no idea. i don't buy that. nobody has looked at this but we are going to look and we are going to go where the evidence takes us. maybe it's a system were nobody's paying attention. i don't know. but i doubt it. mr. chairman, before we call the rule, if i could say that the chairman and the members of the republican side
have put at issue whether there was legitimate predication for this investigation. you have suggested that because there were errors and omissions found by an specter general horowitz in the warrants, that they never would have otherwise issued. of whether there was adequate predication is one that you have that issue. and if we are creating a narrative that there was no accreditation, that the whole thing would have fallen apart completely once the warrant corrected, and i have pursued warrant applications and done wiretaps and have been the chief law enforcement officer in my state in my state-- federally and as a matter of state practice and if i had a warrant implication that contained either a false statement or material omission, what i would do and whatever responsible prosecutor would do
is end it back and get it corrected. you don't end and investigation because you have a bad warrant application. the question of whether this was predicated is alive and well. and the witnesses that senator durbin is proposing are witnesses who could support the fact that there was predication for this investigation. if we are building a narrative that this investigation should have stopped dead as soon as the warrants went in that were wrong, as soon as rosenstein found out about it, that there should have been no russia collusion investigation despite all of the funding -- the findings that there was in fact russian activity in russian influence in the selection -- in this election than we are on a different course of what we're are trying to get to the bottom of. i would try to submit that where your concerns and our concerns overlap is in the repeated republican assertion that there was not predication to pursue the question of russian influence.
that's why these are important. i want to make that clear. there is a point where they overlap, was there or whether not predication to continue even if the warrant application had been corrected? sen. graham: i agree. that's why we are calling someone from the mueller team. you come here and justify your work product. how did the situation of all the way it did? why did you think these people were working with russians to begin with? how did you miss all of this? that's fair. i welcome someone from the mueller team to come. i welcome mr. mueller. if he cannot come, i welcome wiseman. i'm not afraid to talk to the mueller people about what they did. i think we should. the clerk will call the role. [roll call vote]
general, and one present attorney general. missing is a former attorney general who certainly has relevant knowledge, jeff sessions. in fact, if you look at the reasons for his recusing himself , it was because he might have some relevant involvement in the to, in partthat led , crossfire hurricane. 2016, the dayy 31 the fbi opened crossfire theicane, he told cnn investigation should look at 30,000 emails that were in possession of the russians , " they are the ones who have them." and he discussed in the mueller
report's regard to seeking an arrangement for a meeting with president trump -- with trump and putin. he mentioned contact with russians during his campaign onluding with the ambassador volumes one pages one of 32108 103 to 108.e pages i ask that the amendment be called to include jeff sessions. sen. graham: i respectfully disagree with the rick quest for -- with the request for attorney general sessions area -- sessions. [roll call vote]
amendment that i hope maybe we can agree on, there have been a lot of references to the mueller report and wanting to get to the bottom of how the crossfire investigation began. you have indicated that you want to have someone here from the mueller team. i think we need the unredacted mueller report. i don't know whether you referred to subpoenaing the full report on redacted -- unredacted but i have an amendment that would require the chairman to subpoena that report. i ask it be called up. sen. graham: i will make sure that anyone can look at the unredacted portions. i don't know why it's redacted but we will all be able to look at it for ourselves. i will post the amendment and the clerk calls role.
amendment does not agree to. anything else? senator harris. sen. harris: on behalf of myself and mr. booker i am offering an amendment which would provide that the chairman would not issue subpoenas under the authority of this motion until the senate passes legislation to meaningfully address the justice in policing act, which is within the jurisdiction of this committee, specifically that would address racial profiling and excessive use of force and other forms of discriminatory policing. and i request a roll call on my amendment. sen. graham: i will move to table, the court calls role. [roll call vote]
discussion. the chairman is authorized to issue subpoenas pursuant to the motion and the last piece of business we will hold over the ,ttorney general legislation hopefully we can get to that next week. i promise we will have a vote on it. --the motion to support the circuit judge for the fifth circuit, the clerk will call the role. >> mr. chairman? we will vote and he will wait until -- and wait until he gets here. >> excuse me mr. chairman. do you want to wait? way,or hawley is on the that will give us the necessary number. i could vote or i could wait. sen. feinstein: you can keep the
vote open. sen. graham: that's the point, so people can go on about their business. but i won't do it if you don't want me to. >> that will violate the rules. it's a senate rule. sen. graham: well, we are senators. and we run this committee. is he coming? i assume in good faith, if he does show up we will avoid the vote. but we will vote and leave it open so everyone can go about their business. the clerk will call the role. sen. feinstein: i would like to see correct -- >> i would like to seek recognition. sen. graham: you may. >> in the middle of the pandemic that has already claimed over 110,000 lives, and that's not
the end of it, this committee is moving forward with yet another nominee who is openly hostile to the affordable care act. cory wilson has nunnally called the aca perverse and illegitimate, he has also stated that he wanted the supreme court to strike down and he might very well get that wish out of this supreme court. he apparently has no problem having millions of americans without health care as the result of the supreme court potentially setting aside the aca. he must know that this kind of decision will result in the disproportionate harm that lack of insurance will have. mr. wilson lacks the judicial temperament to be judged with a lifetime appointment. he has repeatedly demonstrated that he's a right-wing politician with a voting record as a state legislature, even
when he was not in office. he admits that he views himself and asrtisan politician a judge why has he not taken about -- down his highly offensive tweets against president obama and hillary clinton? arguing that republicans are the adults in the room and obama and company are increasingly shrill, dishonest, and intellectually bankrupt. he had been appointed to the judicial seat. he kept that up to help him with his base, when he actually had to run for his state judicial all signs point him
continuing his long-standing pattern of partisan actions and statements, posing health care, voting rights, lgt bq rights, the list goes on for cory wilson and why should he change his views on any of these matters, especially with the security of a lifetime appointment. i will be voting against his nomination. sen. graham: anyone else who would like to submit a statement , we will make sure that's done. >> senator graham? i was present but i believe i may not have been recorded present. sen. graham: you will be recorded present. >> mr. chairman can i -- sen. graham: you will be recorded. the nomination for cory t wilson for the circuit, the court will vote. [roll call vote]
washington journal program or social media feeds. c-span, created by america's cable television companies as a public service and brought to you today by your television provider. "american history tv" on c-span3, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. today at 6:00 p.m. eastern on the civil war, the 1863 richmond bread riots where hundreds of poor and working-class women protested the scarcity of food. and films from the 1940's 1950's talking about the auto and airline industries negatively impacted by the coronavirus. and the next administration's administration's native american reforms.
watch "american history tv" this weekend on c-span three. john charles fremont brought the pacific coast into the united states. at the beginning of this, the u.s. didn't have a pacific coast. there was territory in oregon disputed with britain and california which belonged to mexico. fremont encouraged the american settlement of oregon and took part in the conquest of california just in time for the gold rush. he played a real role in changing the map of the u.s. announcer 1: steve inskeep on his book in perfect union -- imperfect union. sunday night 8:00 eastern on c-span's q and a. >> in his first commencement
address at the united states military academy, president trump called the west point graduating class the bravest of the brave. more than 1000 cadets received their commission as second lieutenants in the u.s. army. [applause] pres. trump: thank you, general. hello, cadets. on behalf of our entire nation, let me say congratulations to the incredible west point class of 2020. congratulations. everyone, have a good time, enjoy yourselves because we are here to celebrate your achievements, and great achievements they