[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LESSONS FROM THE MUELLER REPORT,
PART II: BIPARTISAN PERSPECTIVES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 20, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-28
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available http://judiciary.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
38-220 WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chairman
ZOE LOFGREN, California DOUG COLLINS, Georgia,
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas Ranking Member
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., Wisconsin
Georgia STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
KAREN BASS, California JIM JORDAN, Ohio
CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana KEN BUCK, Colorado
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
ERIC SWALWELL, California MATT GAETZ, Florida
TED LIEU, California MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington TOM McCLINTOCK, California
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
J. LUIS CORREA, California GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, BEN CLINE, Virginia
Vice-Chair KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
LUCY McBATH, Georgia
GREG STANTON, Arizona
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
Perry Apelbaum, Majority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
Brendan Belair, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
OCTOBER 30, 2019
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary...................................................... 1
The Honorable Doug Collins, Ranking Member, Committee on the
Judiciary...................................................... 3
WITNESSES
Carrie Cordero, Robert M. Gates Senior Fellow and General
Counsel, Center for a New American Security
Oral Testimony............................................... 7
Prepared Testimony........................................... 10
Richard Hasen, Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political
Science, The University of California, Irvine School of Law
Oral Testimony............................................... 21
Prepared Testimony........................................... 23
Alina Polyakova, Director, Project on Global Democracy and
Emerging Technology, and Fellow--Foreign Policy, Center on the
United States and Europe, Brookings Institute
Oral Testimony............................................... 31
Prepared Testimony........................................... 34
Saikrishna Prakash, James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law
and Paul G. Mahoney Research Professor of Law, University of
Virginia School of Law
Oral Testimony............................................... 38
Prepared Testimony........................................... 41
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
A The Hill article titled ``Key Figure That Mueller Report Linked
to Russia was a State Department Intel Source'' submitted by
the Honorable Matt Gaetz, a Member of Congress from the State
of Florida, Committee on the Judiciary......................... 93
A The Hill article titled ``Webb: President Trump is Right''
submitted by the Honorable Andy Biggs, a Member of Congress
from the State of Arizona, Committee on the Judiciary.......... 101
Tweets submitted by the Honorable Doug Collins, Ranking Member,
Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 109
APPENDIX
An American Greatness article titled ``No Outrage Over Democrat
Ties to Foreign Election Interference'' submitted by the
Honorable Andy Biggs, a Member of Congress from the State of
Arizona, Committee on the Judiciary............................ 138
A statement submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Member of Congress from the State of Texas, Committee on the
Judiciary...................................................... 142
A Newsweek article titled ``Ex-GOP Federal Prosecutors Explain
How Trump Obstructed Justice in Viral Video: `Absolute
Disregard For the Law' '' submitted by the Honorable Sheila
Jackson Lee, a Member of Congress from the State of Texas,
Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 146
Page
A New York Times article titled ``Mueller Zeros in on Story Put
Together About Trump Tower Meeting'' submitted by the Honorable
Sheila Jackson Lee, a Member of Congress from the State of
Texas, Committee on the Judiciary.............................. 149
A New York Times article titled ``Hope Hicks Acknowledges She
Sometimes Tells White Lies for Trump'' submitted by the
Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Member of Congress from the
State of Texas, Committee on the Judiciary..................... 155
H.R. 2353, the ``Duty to Refuse and Report Foreign Interference
in American Elections Act of 2019'' submitted by the Honorable
Sheila Jackson Lee, a Member of Congress from the State of
Texas, Committee on the Judiciary.............................. 157
LESSONS FROM THE MUELLER REPORT, PART II: BIPARTISAN PERSPECTIVES
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 2019
House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:13 a.m., in Room
2141 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jerrold Nadler
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson Lee,
Cohen, Johnson of Georgia, Deutch, Bass, Richmond, Jeffries,
Cicilline, Lieu, Raskin, Jayapal, Demings, Correa, Scanlon,
Garcia, Neguse, McBath, Stanton, Dean, Mucarsel-Powell,
Escobar, Collins, Chabot, Gohmert, Jordan, Buck, Ratcliffe,
Roby, Gaetz, Johnson of Louisiana, Biggs, McClintock, Lesko,
Reschenthaler, Cline, Armstrong, and Steube.
Staff Present: Arya Hariharan, Deputy Chief Oversight
Counsel; David Greengrass, Senior Counsel; John Doty, Senior
Advisor; Madeline Strasser, Chief Clerk; Susan Jansen,
Parliamentarian/Senior Counsel; Sophie Brill, Counsel,
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties; Rachel Calanni, Professional Staff Member,
Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship; Brendan Belair,
Minority Staff Director; Bobby Parmiter, Minority Deputy Staff
Director/Chief Counsel; Jon Ferro, Minority Parliamentarian/
General Counsel; Carlton Davis, Minority Chief Oversight
Counsel; Ashley Callen, Minority Oversight Counsel; Danny
Johnson, Minority Oversight Counsel; Jake Greenberg, Minority
Oversight Counsel; and Erica Barker, Minority Chief Legislative
Clerk.
Chairman Nadler. The Judiciary Committee will come to
order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the committee at any time.
We welcome everyone to today's hearing on ``Lessons from
the Mueller Report, Part II: Bipartisan Perspectives.'' I will
now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Last week we heard from two former United States attorneys
who exhaustively described President Trump's repeated efforts
to undermine Special Counsel Mueller's investigation of
Russia's interference in the 2016 elections. We also heard from
President Nixon's former White House counsel who told us that
the actions by this administration were substantially similar
to the measures the Nixon administration took to undermine the
Watergate investigation.
But there is one important difference. Special Counsel
Mueller was investigating a different kind of break-in. The
target, a political campaign, was similar to that in Watergate,
but the burglar was a hostile foreign nation. The crime was
carried out through a hacking operation that stole hundreds of
thousands of documents rather than the contents of a single
safe, and the hacked documents were used extensively to affect
the outcome of the election.
Today's hearing will focus on Special Counsel Mueller's
investigation of what Russia did to our democracy in 2016, and
then what Russia is still trying to do to our democracy today.
This is the second in a series of hearings designed to unpack
the findings of Special Counsel Mueller's report so that we can
discuss its implications, craft legislation, and make other
recommendations to the House, as necessary.
We have called this a hearing for bipartisan perspectives,
not only to reflect the makeup of our witness panel, but
because there should be broad consensus across the political
spectrum that we cannot allow foreign nations to interfere in
our democratic self-government.
There should also be broad consensus that if a political
candidate accepts help from a foreign nation, and even welcomes
this attack on our democracy, that candidate has fundamentally
betrayed the very institutions that he or she must swear an
oath to protect.
To be clear, the question before us is not merely whether
campaign officials commit a crime when they take a meeting with
foreign officials to discuss, quote, ``dirt on an opponent,''
or whether Federal law prohibits the candidate from publicly
encouraging hacking operations from a foreign adversary. The
question before us comes down to what we as American citizens
are willing to accept from our leaders.
Nearly 2 years ago, FBI Director Christopher Wray announced
that the FBI was setting up a Foreign Influence Task Force
designed to combat, quote, ``foreign influence operations,''
close quote, including, quote, ``covert actions by foreign
governments to influence U.S. political sentiment,'' close
quote.
The FBI explained that the goal of these influence
operations is to spread disinformation, sow discord, and
ultimately undermine confidence in our democratic institutions
and values.
I cannot imagine that a single member of this committee
would disagree that these operations are poisonous to our
democracy and must be disrupted and dismantled to the fullest
extent of the law.
In fact, at our hearing last week, I was struck by a common
theme in the remarks of some of our Republican colleagues. They
acknowledged that we were attacked by a foreign adversary. They
acknowledged that our election systems are not secure. They
acknowledged that Congress must respond to these threats
without delay. But then they urged us to stop talking about the
findings in the Mueller report.
Unfortunately, we cannot simply forget that the President's
2016 election campaign encouraged Russia's actions, both
privately and publicly. Our Nation's intelligence officials
have made clear that Russia may do the very same things in the
next election, or perhaps worse. Other hostile adversaries may
try as well.
Last week, to the alarm of Americans across the political
spectrum, and likely to the alarm of the men and women in the
law enforcement and intelligence communities who are working to
prevent these attacks, President Trump stated in an interview
that he would be willing to accept information about a
political opponent from a foreign adversary such as Russia or
China.
First, when asked whether political candidates who are
approached by foreign governments with this kind of information
should call the FBI, President Trump responded, quote, ``You
don't call the FBI, give me a break,'' close quote. When
informed that, quote, ``The FBI Director says that that's what
should happen,'' close quote, he responded, ``The FBI Director
is wrong.''
The next question was not confusing. President Trump was
asked what his campaign would do if a foreign adversary like
Russia or China, quote, ``offers you information on an
opponent.'' He was asked, quote, ``Should they accept it or
should they call the FBI?'' The President responded that maybe
you do both, and went on to state, ``I think I'd want to hear
it,'' and, ``They have information, I think I'd take it.''
In fact, this time around the situation is even more
alarming. President Trump was a private citizen during the 2016
campaign. He now sits at the head of all of our Nation's
intelligence and law enforcement agencies. He is provided with
our Nation's most sensitive secrets on a daily basis. He has
sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against
all enemies, foreign and domestic.
But even with the benefit of all that guidance, and even
with all of the authority and responsibility he has been
granted, the President has said he is open to receiving
information from a foreign adversary. In fact, by stating
publicly that he would accept help from a foreign government,
he may well have encouraged more foreign influence operations
against our democracy.
We heard some relevant testimony about this in the Hicks
interview yesterday, and we will be releasing that transcript
soon.
The President's willingness to again welcome prohibited
foreign assistance, now with a full understanding that the law
prohibits it, is indeed shocking.
The President may be willing to discard the lessons of the
Mueller report, but we are not. With the 2020 election looming,
we must act immediately to respond to the ongoing foreign
threats we face, as well as to the President's apparent
willingness to accept them.
I look forward to today's critical discussion, and to
learning every lesson we can so that this very recent, sorry
history does not repeat itself.
It is now my pleasure to recognize the ranking member of
the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
Collins, for his opening statement.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, the title of the hearing, as you have stated, is
``Lessons From the Mueller Report, Part II: Bipartisan
Perspectives.'' I think we will have our chance to hear this
statement.
I do have a concern that I want to bring up at the
beginning, and this is a procedural issue.
The chairman has every right to have the hearing. I am glad
that he actually has listened to us that the affirmative
finding out of the Mueller report was foreign interference, and
we would like to talk about that.
But yet when our side was asked--or we were asked what is
the hearing schedule for this week, we were told we were going
to get another rerun of obstruction. In fact, that was as late
as of Monday night at 9 o'clock, we were told that this was
going to be all about last week again and obstruction.
Which, you know, look, it is up to the chairman to do
whatever he wants to do and we respect that, but to actually
have a good representation so that we can get appropriate
witnesses and work with that, our witness is going to be--we
are very happy to have him here. But it is something that we
were caught unawares about, and I think it is something that if
we can go forward, at least a knowledgeable heads-up would
affect all, because I think foreign interference in election
systems are things that we need to discuss, and we have talked
about that with bills that are out there. But it should come up
in a hearing in which we actually have asked for it. And you
are not going to allow us to forget the rest of it, so don't
worry about that, I am sure.
As we go forward today, though, the special counsel
finished his investigation, found no Americans, no one on the
Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russians. That
was great news for America, and I thought it would be actually
great news to all Americans. To my surprise--and really not
really surprised--it wasn't.
Democrats are not only disappointed, they are angry. Angry
that the President was not a Russian asset, it seems. Imagine
disliking a President so much that you wished he were a foreign
agent. That is where the other party is today.
Despite the conclusions the Mueller report came to,
Democrats have spent the past few months trying to desperately
revive their Russian conspiracy theory. The Democrats spent 2
years calling the Mueller team the best of the best, but since
they didn't like the outcome, Democrats now have to play
prosecutor and redo the Mueller investigation.
They launched their Mueller do-over when the chairman sent
a document request to 81 individuals and entities connected to
the President. We will call that the 81 investigation, as I
call it. It was quickly abandoned in favor or Plan B.
Plan B was Democrats manufacture a fight with the Attorney
General. They issued a subpoena directing the Attorney General
to violate the law by producing grand jury materials to
Congress. Unsurprisingly, the Attorney General declined to
break the law.
Rather than engage in a traditional accommodation process,
the chairman held the Attorney General in contempt in record
time on flimsy grounds. Even their own witnesses admitted the
subpoena was asking for illegal things.
Did the chairman learn from this experience? No. The
Democrats overplayed their hand again with Plan C when they
subpoenaed testimony and documents from former White House
Counsel Don McGahn. The Democrats subpoenaed McGahn knowing
every President since at least the 1970s, including Presidents
Clinton and Obama, claimed immunity over congressional
testimony from close Presidential advisers. The Trump
administration, like Clinton and Obama, claimed immunity over
McGahn's testimony and McGahn did not appear.
When Plans A through C failed to accomplish anything of
substance, we decided to go in for the heavy artillery for Plan
D. What was Plan D? Was it Mueller himself? No. That would have
made too much sense. Was it a pivot to focus on the actual
findings of wrongdoing in the Mueller report related to foreign
election interference? No, that would have been productive.
How do we focus on real issues facing America with the
border crisis we don't do? No, that would have been too
compassionate. Instead, Plan D was John Dean. Yes, the
convicted felon from the Watergate scandal who spent 40 years
telling everyone who will pay him that anything that walks is
worse--that anything he did was and anything that happens now
is worse than Watergate.
The Columbia Journalism Review ran the headline,
``Democrat's John Dean hearing is a flop.'' Washington Post
columnist Karen Tumulty--no friend of the Trump administration,
by the way--said, ``Perhaps the best thing that could be said
about the hearing was that no one repeated a stunt quite like
the one that we saw Representative Cohen pulled last month in
that same room when he ate from a bucket of chicken.''
The fact that Democrats believe the American public would
be energized by John Dean, who has done nothing relevant since
the 1970s, shows how desperate and out of touch they became.
And that desperation actually showed last week when after the
Dean hearing bombed and at least one member of the committee
scolded MSNBC for ignoring the Dean hearing, not showing it
enough.
I hoped the John Dean hearing was an end to the circus. But
because no matter how many times we relive the findings of the
report, the conclusions will not magically change.
Instead, we are ignoring more pressing issues. But as I
said last week, our actions expose our real priorities. So what
hearing did we include for this week? ``Mueller Report, Part
II: Bipartisan Perspectives.'' Well, we know that we are here
to discuss.
Given the majority's action in preparing for this hearing
and the notice that we were given, I fear that once again we
were turning this committee into another circus. The Attorney
General made the Mueller report public 2 months ago, we can all
read it for ourselves, we have had some wonderful dramatic
readings in here over the past week or two, and even yesterday
in the Hicks interview, and we all know what it says: The
lesson of the Mueller report is no conspiracy.
Well, as everyone in my generation growing up, they
realized that the summer season was after all the shows had run
the whole season, it was time for reruns. Well, tomorrow is the
official start of summer, it is time for rerun season.
Yesterday's episode was Hope Hicks. Today's episode is before
us.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, without further ado, let the
show begin.
Chairman Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Collins.
I will now introduce today's witnesses.
Carrie Cordero is the Robert Gates Senior Fellow and
general counsel at the Center for New American Security and an
adjunct professor of law at Georgetown University. She is also
the co-founder of Checks and Balances, an organization of
conservative and libertarian lawyers dedicated to core
constitutional principles and the rule of law. Ms. Cordero
received her bachelor's degree from Columbia University and her
J.D. from American University.
Richard Hasen is Chancellor's Professor of Law and
Political Science at the University of California, Irvine
School of Law. From 2001 to 2010, Professor Hasen served as
founding co-editor of the quarterly peer-reviewed publication
Election Law Journal. He has authored more than 100 articles on
election law issues. Professor Hasen received his bachelor's
degree from the University of California, Berkeley and his
J.D., M.A., and Ph.D. from UCLA.
Alina Polyakova is the director of the Project on Global
Democracy and Emerging Technology and a fellow in the Foreign
Policy Program's Center on the United States and Europe and
Security Strategy Team at the Brookings Institution. She is
also an adjunct professor of European studies at the Paul Nitze
School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins
University. Dr. Polyakova received her bachelor's degree from
Emory University and her doctorate from the University of
California at Berkeley.
Saikrishna Prakash is a James Monroe Distinguished
Professor of Law and a Paul G. Mahoney Research Professor of
Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. Before
becoming a professor, Mr. Prakash clerked for Judge Laurence
Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit and for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
He received his bachelor's degree from Stanford University and
his J.D. from Yale Law School.
We welcome our distinguished witnesses, and we thank you
for participating in today's hearing. Now, if you would please
rise, I will begin by swearing you in. Raise your right hands.
Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the
testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
Thank you.
Let the record show the witnesses answered in the
affirmative.
Thank you.
Please note that your written testimony will be entered
into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, I ask that you
summarize your testimony in 5 minutes. To help you stay within
that time there is a timing light on your table. When the light
switches from green to yellow, you have 1 minute to conclude
your testimony. When the light turns red, it signals your 5
minutes have expired.
Ms. Cordero, you may begin.
TESTIMONY OF CARRIE CORDERO, ROBERT M. GATES SENIOR FELLOW AND
GENERAL COUNSEL, CENTER FOR A NEW AMERICAN SECURITY; RICHARD
HASEN, CHANCELLOR'S PROFESSOR OF LAW AND POLITICAL SCIENCE, THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE SCHOOL OF LAW; ALINA
POLYAKOVA, DIRECTOR, PROJECT ON GLOBAL DEMOCRACY AND EMERGING
TECHNOLOGY, AND FELLOW--FOREIGN POLICY, CENTER ON THE UNITED
STATES AND EUROPE, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION; AND SAIKRISHNA
PRAKASH, JAMES MONROE DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR OF LAW AND PAUL
G. MAHONEY RESEARCH PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
SCHOOL OF LAW
TESTIMONY OF CARRIE CORDERO
Ms. Cordero. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member,
members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me here today
to support the committee's efforts to bring greater public
awareness to the information in Special Counsel Mueller's
report.
The written statement I have submitted focuses on the
national security aspects in Volume I of the report, including
the special counsel's exposure of a sustained, systematic
intelligence operation by the Government of Russia to interfere
in the 2016 election, why foreign influence matters, and
lessons we can draw from the report. My written statement also
discusses how the chain of events surrounding the report's
release negatively affected public understanding of the
report's facts and findings.
The Russian Government's activities to influence the 2016
Presidential campaign was a foreign intelligence operation
involving two main efforts.
The first was a social media operation intended to
influence American public opinion. The effort was successful in
reaching millions of Americans through social media engagement,
false online personas, and ad purchases.
The second part involved computer hacking to steal and then
release information from the Democratic Party campaign
apparatus.
There was a corollary to the social media operation which
often gets overlooked. Russian online operatives caused real
unsuspecting Americans to gather for political purposes,
pretending to be grassroots activists.
These operatives made virtual contact with and interacted
with Trump campaign supporters and campaign officials. They
organized rallies, including pro-Trump rallies in New York,
Florida, and Pennsylvania.
The Russians released hacked stolen information in two
ways, through fake online personas--DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0--
and through a surrogate--WikiLeaks.
As discussed in my written statement, much of the
information regarding WikiLeaks is redacted in the report, and
given the harm that WikiLeaks has caused U.S. national security
for approximately a decade, we should all be able to agree that
regardless of meeting a criminal standard for prosecution, it
is unacceptable, indeed disqualifying, for a U.S. political
campaign to willingly accept information and consider crafting
a public relations strategy around leaked information from
WikiLeaks or any similar organization that, in the words of
Secretary Pompeo when he was the CIA Director, quote, ``walks
like a hostile intelligence service and talks like a hostile
intelligence service.''
These Russian activities to influence U.S. democratic
institutions and pit Americans against each other are ongoing.
Foreign influence, when conducted behind the scenes, clouds
the policy debate and impacts decisions about Americans while
crowding out the voice of Americans. Foreign intelligence
services conducting their activities abroad know they are
violating the domestic law of the country they target, but they
don't care.
Setting aside legality for a moment, it simply cannot be
that it is acceptable for an American political campaign to
accept foreign assistance in order to win an election.
We have not done a good enough job explaining to the
American public why foreign influence matters. If we allow
foreign interests to invade our thinking regarding our choice
of candidates, to invade our media outlets through releasing
stolen information without understanding where it is coming
from, and to possibly invade our voter registration and
election infrastructure, we are not making decisions for
ourselves.
We cannot allow foreign interests to influence how
Americans look at each other, how we speak to each other, how
we interact with each other online. Foreign involvement in our
elections undermines our democracy.
Members of Congress have a duty to ensure that the
government is protecting Americans from foreign influence. We
are only 18 months away from the next election. My written
statement includes examples of the types of legislative steps
that Congress can take.
On the leadership front, however, the duty is rooted in
Members' oath of office and allegiance to the Constitution. The
evidence in Volume I of the special counsel's report, in
addition to recent public statements made by the President and
his most senior advisers, cannot be ignored.
One cannot faithfully defend the Constitution and be open
to receiving foreign assistance to win an election at the same
time and take actions to actively thwart the Federal
investigation into those foreign influence efforts. The oath
and those acts are incompatible. They should be of grave
concern to this body, which carries its own constitutional
responsibilities. We cannot write off what transpired in 2016.
Right now, today, there is no whole-of-government strategy
to counter foreign influence in elections, no Presidential
leadership to secure our elections, no legislation passed by
Congress to address election security or foreign influence.
Instead, we have deflection and apathy and inaction.
We cannot ignore the information in the special counsel's
report. We cannot not care. We have to care and we have to act.
We have to raise our expectations.
Protecting Americans from foreign interference in our
democracy needs to begin here. Protecting our constitutional
system of checks and balances needs to begin here. Protecting
our shared values, our free elections, and our American
interests needs to begin here.
Thank you.
[The testimony of Ms. Cordero follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Nadler. Thank you very much.
Professor Hasen.
TESTIMONY OF RICHARD HASEN
Mr. Hasen. Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, and
members of the Judiciary Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear here today to speak about a matter that
is among my greatest concerns I have had in 25 years of
researching and teaching about American election law and
campaign finance issues: the potential for continued illegal
foreign interference in United States elections and a United
States President's ill-advised encouragement of foreign
government meddling.
From Founding Fathers George Washington and Alexander
Hamilton to Supreme Court Justices John Paul Stevens and
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, American leaders have recognized that
hostile foreign nations with, as Justice Stevens put it, no
basic investment in the well-being of the country may attempt
to interfere in American elections in order to manipulate an
election's outcome or to curry favor with the winner.
Justice Kavanaugh in the 2011 case Bluman v. Federal
Election Commission held that the United States has a
compelling interest in democratic self-government. This
unanimous opinion upheld the ban on foreign contributions and
expenditures in American elections, and the Supreme Court
affirmed the ruling without even issuing its own opinion.
Indeed, until President Trump came along there was broad
bipartisan consensus that foreign interference in American
elections undermines the idea that we the people, and not
outsiders with interests adverse to the United States, get to
choose American leaders.
In the wake of unprecedented Russian interference in the
2016 Presidential elections, and in light of statements made
last week by President Trump that he saw, quote, ``nothing
wrong'' with taking valuable information from a foreign
government about an election opponent in the 2020 elections, it
is worth considering both what current campaign finance law
prohibits when it comes to foreign interference in elections
and what steps Congress can and should take, consistent with
the First Amendment, to ensure continued American self-
government.
Volume I of the Mueller report revealed that agents of the
Russian Government and military did three things. They engaged
in a social media campaign to provoke and amplify social
discord and eventually to support its favorite candidate,
Trump. They stole emails from officials of the DNC, including
campaign official John Podesta, and released them through
WikiLeaks and other sources. And they, quote, ``targeted
individuals and entities involved in the administration of
elections,'' including State boards of elections and voting
machine companies.
The Department of Justice charged 13 individuals and
entities affiliated with the Russian military with crimes
related to these activities. We will never know the extent to
which these Russian military activities influenced the outcome
of the 2016 elections, but there is no question as to their
intent. There is also little question that foreign powers will
try to interfere again in 2020.
The Mueller report should be a wakeup call for all
Americans. Three key congressional improvements would be
increased cybersecurity funding, extending the foreign
expenditure prohibition and disclosure laws to all online
advertising, and requiring campaigns to report contacts from
foreign agents.
But President Trump has not only failed to support these
bipartisan measures, he has actually encouraged foreign
meddling. In the 2016 election, Russian operatives targeted
Hillary Clinton's personal offices approximately 5 hours after
Trump remarkably encouraged the Russian Government to find
Clinton's supposed 30,000 missing emails from her time as
Secretary of State.
As to the 2020 elections, Trump even more outrageously told
ABC News' George Stephanopoulos he saw nothing wrong with
taking, quote, ``opposition research'' about an opponent from
the government.
As explained in the Mueller report, this is illegal. The
report cited Federal Election Commission authority for the view
that opposition research counts as a thing of value under
Federal law. The report stated, quote, ``A foreign entity that
engaged in such research and provided resulting information to
a campaign could exert a greater effect in an election, and a
greater tendency to ingratiate the donor to the candidate than
a gift of money or tangible things of value.''
While some may question whether American campaign officials
understood that a foreign donation or opposition research to a
campaign was illegal in 2016, everyone, including the
President, is now on notice that for 2020 this conduct is
illegal. And yet, the President's statements appear to be
another invitation to foreign governments to provide valuable
information on his opponents.
Legal or not, foreign government interference in American
elections undermines our democracy and self-government. While
it was the Russian Government supporting the Republican
candidate in 2016, it could well be Russia or another country
supporting a Democrat in 2020 or beyond.
The goal of the Russians is to foment discord, something
which should worry every American regardless of political
party.
Thank you for the opportunity to present these views. I
welcome your questions.
[The testimony of Mr. Hasen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Nadler. Thank you.
Dr. Polyakova.
TESTIMONY OF ALINA POLYAKOVA
Dr. Polyakova. Thank you, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member
Collins, and distinguished members of the committee. It is a
real honor and privilege to address you here today in this
critical issue concerning our democracy. Thank you for inviting
me to speak.
I have submitted my written testimony for the record, which
focuses on Russia's intent towards democracies, in particular
the United States; Russia's political warfare against the West;
and why these actions should be of deep concern to all of us
here in the United States and elsewhere.
First, a quick caveat. Throughout my oral comments, I refer
to Russia as a shorthand to refer to the authoritarian regime
of President Vladimir Putin, and in no way do I refer to the
Russian people, who are indeed the primary victims of Kremlin's
repressive regime.
By now, it should be clear to all of us that Russia is
engaged in a political warfare against Western democracies. As
is accurately stated in the Mueller investigation report, its
broader intent is to undermine trust in our democratic
institutions, values, and principles, which the Kremlin sees as
a threat to its own authoritarian model of control.
The Kremlin's toolkit of influence is a 21st century
adaptation of Soviet era active measures, which includes
digital disinformation campaigns, cyber warfare, political
infiltration, and the use of corruption to influence democratic
politics.
To date, the report and the investigation's related
indictments from February 2018 and July 2018 against the
Internet Research Agency, the so-called troll farm, and the
Russian military intelligence, the GRU, provide the most
comprehensive assessment of the continuing and evolving Russian
threat.
Today I will focus my comments primarily on the information
operations that the Russian Government carried out against the
United States, mainly because this is the area we continue to
lag behind in addressing this critical threat.
The Mueller report, which has been sustained by independent
reporting, clearly shows that Russia's information operations
were highly adapted to the political context of the United
States, followed a well-thought-out strategic plan, and
involved direction from Russian intelligence. They were also
incredibly effective in infiltrating American media while
influencing public debate around the 2016 elections.
Their main objective was to undermine trust in our
democratic process. The nature of that attack, as my colleagues
have already stated, involved three interrelated parts: an
information operation led by the IRA, a cyber hack and leak
operation carried out by the Russian military intelligence, and
infiltration operation of the Trump campaign.
The information operations began as early as 2014, a full 2
years before our Presidential elections. They resembled a
marketing campaign using the tools provided by social media
platforms.
In brief, they proceeded in four phases:
An initial phase of building a network of online accounts
by impersonating American individuals, particularly on
Facebook.
By 2015, the second phase involved building audience growth
by creating pages and content that were not necessarily
political, even divisive, but simply meant to build increasing
attention to IRA-controlled pages and accounts.
By 2016, the IRA turned explicitly to the U.S. elections
with the goal of undermining the Clinton campaign and
amplifying social division.
It was not until the late spring of 2016, so a few months
before our Presidential elections that fall, that it turned to
active promotion of then candidate Donald Trump. By the end of
the 2016 elections, the IRA had the ability to reach as many as
126 million people on Facebook and 1.4 million on Twitter.
The IRA was part of a larger interference project funded by
the Russian oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin called Project Lakhta.
Yet, due to the extensive nature of the redactions in the
Mueller report, we still don't know the full scope of the
command structure, how far into the Kremlin the decisionmaking
process reached, and how the project continues to be funded
today.
The Russian operation against the United States does not
stand alone. It fits into a much broader pattern of Russian
nonkinetic activities, tested first and foremost in the former
Soviet countries, most notably Ukraine.
Russian influence operations also do not focus on isolated
events. They do not stop when the ballot box closes. Rather,
taken as a whole, they are the core of a political strategy
honed in Europe's East and deployed against the West to weaken
democratic institutions and sow discord in our societies.
In my written testimony, I provide multiple examples of how
the Russian Government has, since at least 2004, intervened and
interfered in Ukraine's democratic processes and how it
continues since the 2016 elections to interfere in the
democratic societies of our allies in Europe.
It is particularly concerning that many European far-right
political parties have formal cooperation agreements with the
Kremlin's United Russia Party, including the ruling party in
Italy, called the League, and the Austrian Freedom Party, which
has been until recently a coalition government with the center-
right in Austria.
Thus, the operation targeting the United States
Presidential election may have been the most prominent case of
Russian political warfare, but has not been the last, nor will
it be. That's because so far we have fallen behind in
addressing this threat.
In particular, the United States has fallen behind our
European allies in imposing costs that would deter Russia from
carrying out future attacks of this nature in the upcoming
elections and other critical moments of concern to the Russian
Federation.
Whereas military strikes are much more readily felt,
influence operations are not clearly felt by American people
and other citizens in democratic societies. Yet, over time they
are a slow drip that starts to burrow a hole in that delicate
political contract between our institutions and our citizens,
eroding democratic discourse and undermining the democratic
process.
The lack of consequences imposed on Russia for its attack
on the United States sends a very clear message to other
authoritarian regimes that they currently have an open door to
further destabilize our democracy. We should not and cannot let
this stand.
Thank you.
[The testimony of Dr. Polyakova follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Nadler. Thank you.
Professor Prakash. I hope I pronounced it correctly.
TESTIMONY OF SAIKRISHNA PRAKASH
Mr. Prakash. You did. You did, Chairman Nadler. You did a
great job, in fact.
Good morning, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, and
members of the Judiciary Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to participate in today's hearings. I want to
underscore that my views today are just my views, they don't
represent the institution that I work for.
I have four points today. I am going to be discussing the
obstruction charges or the obstruction part of the report, Part
II, not Part I.
First, I want to emphasize that Presidents have broad
constitutional powers over the Justice Department, including
the FBI, and for that matter, special counsels. That is their
constitutional job. Just as it is yours to make laws, it is
theirs to execute the laws. It is a mistake, a fundamental
mistake, to view Presidential involvement in prosecutorial
decisions as if that were ipso facto sinister interference in
DOJ matters.
Second, the Mueller report does not demonstrate that the
President committed obstruction of justice because the
obstruction statutes do not apply to his official acts, and
even if they did, we do not have clear proof that he committed
obstruction of justice. Without more, the removal of James
Comey and the attempted removal of Robert Mueller does not
constitute a crime.
Third, contrary to the DOJ, I believe Presidents may be
prosecuted while in office. I do not believe they have any
immunity. Unlike you, they don't have immunity in the
Constitution. You have a privilege from arrest found in the
Constitution, and you have a Speech and Debate Clause. There is
no such provision for Presidents. That is obviously contrary to
what the DOJ says. The DOJ is not likely to listen to me, they
are more likely to listen to their own opinions, but I think
the DOJ is wrong about that.
And then fourth, and finally, the category of impeachable
offense is incredibly broad. You are free to impeach the
President whether or not he obstructed justice in a criminal
sense. If you think he abused his power, you can impeach him
for that reason. You could also impeach him if you think he
violated the Emoluments Clause or the Appropriations Clause.
So let me talk about Presidents and prosecutions.
First, the Constitution makes the President the
``constitutional executor'' of the laws, as Hamilton wrote
during the Washington administration. The President's principal
power is the power over law execution. And this was recognized
had not only by Hamilton on multiple occasions, but by James
Madison, and of course George Washington. George Washington
supervised American prosecutors. He told them whom to prosecute
and he told them whom not to prosecute.
His successors did the same. John Adams would read the
newspaper every morning and identify seditious writings and
send them to his prosecutors. Now, the Sedition Act arguably
was unconstitutional. It likely was unconstitutional. But the
point is that John Adams was reading the paper and asking
prosecutors to prosecute individuals. And Thomas Jefferson
supervised prosecution as well. He was heavily involved in the
prosecution of his former vice president, Aaron Burr. They did
this all without statutory warrant.
My second point is that the Mueller report, I think,
assumes too quickly that the obstruction statutes apply to the
official acts of government officials, including the President.
I think that's a mistake.
The obstruction statutes are written in broad terms. But if
you apply the obstruction statutes to the President, they apply
no less to the Department of Justice. It means that every
department official is involved in influencing an
investigation, which means they have satisfied the act and
nexus requirements.
The only question is whether they acted for a corrupt
motive, which means it's possible that Robert Mueller and his
aides committed obstruction of justice if they acted out of a
corrupt motive.
I think that's a silly reading of the statute. I do not
believe the statute is meant to apply to the Department of
Justice or other government officials, and I would not read it
to apply to Robert Mueller, or for that matter, the President.
Independent of that reading, the President has
constitutional authorities over law execution, as I just
mentioned. It is a mistake to read the obstruction statute
written in general terms as if it applied to the President.
There are many Supreme Court cases that choose not to read
general statutes that are generaly applicable as if they apply
to the President for fear that it would chill the President's
constitutional conduct. And I think the courts would very
likely apply that rule to the obstruction statutes for fear
that it might chill the President's supervision of the Justice
Department.
So, for instance, if Bernie Sanders wins the next election,
and Chris Wray is the FBI Director, and Bernie Sanders believes
that Christopher Wray is misusing resources and dragging out an
investigation of the Sanders administration, I think it is
entirely permissible for Bernie Sanders to fire Chris Wray, and
I don't think there should be an investigation merely because
he did so. And I think that was the mistake at the outset. I
don't know who authorized the investigation of obstruction, but
I think it was a mistake because you can't infer an improper
motive from the President's involvement.
And let me end with this point. The obstruction report of
Robert Mueller said that the President can get involved in the
prosecution if he has political or policy motives, but not if
he has personal motives.
Everyone understands that the President had both motives,
or could have had both motives when he chose to fire Comey. The
personal motive would have been, ``I don't want him to
investigate me.'' The politics or policy reason would have
been, ``He is impeding my ability to conduct myself in this
important office.''
Anyone who was in an important office knows that their
ability to carry out that office is impeded by an
investigation, and if that is the reason, it is not corrupt and
it is perfectly fine. The Mueller report says as much.
And so once you understand that, and the Mueller report
does say this in the footnote and in the text, you can see why
it's really difficult to show that the President's motive was
actual corruption.
I see that I am over time. I welcome your questions.
[The testimony of Mr. Prakash follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Nadler. Thank you. And I will begin by recognizing
myself for 5 minutes.
Professor Prakash, first and very briefly, you said
essentially something that we have heard a lot of people say,
that the President has certain constitutional powers and that
by excising those constitutional powers he can't commit
obstruction of justice. He can fire someone for whatever reason
he wants. Is that correct?
Mr. Prakash. That is not quite what I believe, Chairman. I
think you could have gotten that from my adumbrated comments.
But if you have a chance to look at the testimony, my view is
that we ought not to read a general statute as if it covered
the President, just like we ought not to read it to cover
Robert Mueller, and that if it does cover the President, it
raises difficult constitutional questions.
Chairman Nadler. All right. Let me ask you this. A Member
of Congress has the absolute constitutional right to vote for
or against a bill. But if he voted for or against a bill
because someone gave him a bribe of $50,000, that would be a
crime.
Mr. Prakash. Yes.
Chairman Nadler. The President has the right to fire
somebody. But if he fired somebody or to do anything else
within his constitutional power for an improper reason, like
someone gave him a bribe, or because for any other improper
reason, you would agree that that would be illegal.
Mr. Prakash. Chairman, as you well know, the bribery
statutes are about official conduct. It's hard to read a
bribery statute as if it didn't reach official conduct. In
constrast, the obstruction statutes aren't quintessentially
about official conduct. Everybody is covered by it.
So I think it's easier to read the bribery statute as if it
covered official acts because, of course, to bribe someone in
an official capacity involves----
Chairman Nadler. You say some statutes cover official acts
and others don't.
Mr. Prakash. Some statutes clearly do because they say as
much. Some have the deep implication that they do.
Chairman Nadler. Thank you.
Professor Cordero, you noted in your testimony that you are
a co-founder of Checks and Balances, an organization of
conservative and libertarian lawyers who are dedicated to core
constitutional principles and to upholding the rule of law.
As a conservative with an expertise in national security
law, why did you find the President's statements last week
about his willingness to accept opposition research from a
foreign government so concerning?
Ms. Cordero. Well, they are concerning because--so, first
of all, in terms of the President's responsibilities as
President, he is responsible for overseeing the national
security of the United States. He has commander in chief
responsibility.
Receiving foreign assistance has been recognized throughout
the entire history of the country as something that is counter
and undermines the Constitution. He has an oath that he is
defending the Constitution.
There is no way that a President can or any official can
willingly receive and indicate a willingness to receive foreign
assistance, which we have not only constitutional principles
that cut against receiving foreign assistance, they warn about
foreign influence over our democracy. And Congress has passed
statutes that try to provide transparency and get at the issue
and uncover potential foreign influence on our democratic
institutions and on Congress.
So his being willing to receive that foreign assistance, I
think, is simply incompatible with his role.
Chairman Nadler. Thank you. And is it likely or plausible
that the President's statements last week may encourage Russia
or other foreign governments to engage in the same type of
influence operations against our democracy in the next
election?
Ms. Cordero. Of course. They are paying attention. They are
listening to everything that the President and his advisers and
Members of this body say. So when he or anyone else indicates a
willingness to receive foreign assistance, that is not just a
signal, that is an invitation from a national security
perspective to Russian intelligence and any other intelligence
service that's out there that wants to try to find a way to
influence our democratic processes.
Chairman Nadler. Thank you.
Professor Hasen, you've explained why providing opposition
research to a political campaign counts as a campaign
contribution or a thing of value for purposes of campaign
finance law. In fact, don't campaigns often pay a great deal of
money for opposition research?
Mr. Hasen. I should correct you that it is Hasen.
Chairman Nadler. Hasen. I'm sorry.
Mr. Hasen. The use of or the sale of opposition research or
polling data has been found by the Federal Election Commission
to count as a thing of value for purposes of the campaign
finance laws, and giving it in-kind, if its value is over the
value that is allowed as a contribution, can be illegal. That's
been recognized by the FEC.
Chairman Nadler. Thank you.
So if a foreign government provides opposition research to
a campaign for free, that can constitute a significant in-kind
donation, correct?
Mr. Hasen. Yes, and the Mueller report noted it could be
worth much more than some kind of dollar value contribution.
Chairman Nadler. Thank you.
You've also explained that U.S. law prohibits any foreign
national from contributing to State or Federal election
campaigns. You described a decision that then Judge Kavanaugh
wrote in 2011 upholding the ban on foreign election
contributions.
Is it fair to say that in that opinion, Judge, now Justice
Kavanaugh described the United States as having a compelling
interest in preventing foreign influence in U.S. elections?
Mr. Hasen. Yes. He recognized an interest in democratic
self-government, and the Supreme Court thought the proposition
was so obvious that it summarily affirmed his decision and
didn't even schedule a hearing on the case.
Chairman Nadler. Did anybody in the court or on the Supreme
Court disagree?
Mr. Hasen. No.
Chairman Nadler. Thank you.
Professor Prakash, although I disagreed with you on many
other points, I'm in full agreement with your argument that the
Constitution does not grant the President any privileges or
immunities from prosecution. In fact, you say the Constitution
does not grant the President, quote, ``any sort of privileges
or immunities.''
Would you agree then that White House advisers cannot claim
they're, quote, ``absolutely immune,'' unquote, from having to
testify before Congress based on a theory that they act as the
President's alter egos?
Mr. Prakash. Chairman Nadler, I'll tell you what I tell my
class. I agree with you 110 percent. But I think,
unfortunately, administrations for the past several decades
have claimed this privilege and Congress has been unable to
stop them. So I agree with you that people who work for the
President should be forced to testify before Congress.
Chairman Nadler. Except for when you can establish
executive privilege, I assume.
Mr. Prakash. Well, I don't want to talk about executive
privilege. But I am on the record as saying I don't believe
there is an executive privilege, certainly not vis-a-vis
Congress.
Chairman Nadler. Okay. My time has expired.
The ranking member, Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A couple of things that are concerning. One, I think this
committee at times acts like a hypochondriac, we like to talk
about the symptoms and not get into the disease.
I don't disagree with the three Democratic witnesses. This
is what we should be doing. We shouldn't be having to hear from
you that it should be. We've got bills actually in queue that
we could be having this hearing on.
I'm glad you all are here today, but you don't need to be
here. We're like hypochondriacs just talking about symptoms and
there are actually cures out here that we can begin working on.
We appreciate you being here, but it's absolutely adding
nothing to getting anything done as we go forward, which
concerns me.
Because this is very obvious from the opening statements
here that--Mr. Chairman, we were under, again, the
understanding this was to be an obstruction hearing, and as
late--and we have emails to state to this--as late as 9 on
Monday night, which could have had, you know, again, a better
discussion of what you're wanting to discuss. And we could all
still be hypochondriacs and talk about the symptoms when we
could have scheduled even a markup to deal with bills that are
actually in the queue.
So I just have a few questions here that we look at. One, I
would like to ask each witness very quickly, when were you
first contacted by committee staff about testifying at today's
hearing? Starting, Ms. Cordero, with you.
Ms. Cordero. I don't remember the date, Mr. Ranking Member.
I think I've talked to staff----
Mr. Collins. When were you asked about appearing today? And
give me a week, 2 weeks, whatever. Appearing today, actually
today.
Ms. Cordero [continuing]. At least--maybe--at least a week
ago. I'm sorry, I don't remember the date. At least a week ago.
Mr. Collins. No problem. Just general is fine.
Ms. Cordero. Yeah, at least a week ago.
Mr. Hasen. Saturday evening.
Dr. Polyakova. Monday.
Mr. Collins. And I know when we contacted you, but go ahead
and state it for the record.
Mr. Prakash. I believe Thursday or Friday of last week.
Mr. Collins. Okay.
You know, again, I think this is an interesting thing. And
as the committee can work together on many things, I think the
concern is, is that we have to be exceedingly, unfortunately,
hostile or hide the ball on everything, and this is just not
the way this one should be.
And it is very frustrating for us on this side, preparing
for one thing, and finding out as late as--you know, for us not
even finding out you were the ones who were going to be
testifying until really basically Tuesday morning, and finding
out some of you weren't even attached until this weekend, which
says after we were told what was going to be happening they
called you.
So this is a hide the ball problem, Mr. Chairman. It needs
to not happen as we go forward.
One of the aspects, though, of this, going back to
obstruction, was an interesting issue that we want to talk
about. An important aspect of national security is maintaining
secrecy of classified information, avoiding leaks, whether the
leakers are foreign or domestic.
We know that Director Comey leaked internal FBI memos
containing classified information to the media through Columbia
Professor Richman.
Mr. Prakash, would you like to--would you consider that
problematic?
Mr. Prakash. I don't know if the memo was classified, but,
of course, if it was, it certainly would be problematic.
Mr. Collins. You know, as we have confirmed through the
special counsel and the investigations and the evidence after
his 2-year investigation of the no underlying collusion or
crime, it is certainly--former Director Comey certainly did not
have evidence of conspiracy, it was shown that, and that came
out in the Mueller report.
So I find it especially troubling that Mr. Comey leaked
documents to help--that helped spark, by many accusations, the
appointment or influence of the special counsel's
investigation.
If it would be so in the way he leaked this, would that--
and we are discussing obstruction here--in doing so, could that
leaking constitute an obstruction of justice?
Mr. Prakash. Mr. Comey was a private citizen when he leaked
those memos. If he leaked them for a personal motive--namely,
to get back at the President for firing him--under the special
counsel's report, that would be a corrupt motive.
If, on the other hand, he did it out of public interest,
that it wouldn't be, which of course is the problem with trying
to figure out whether something is corrupt or not, both for
this factual pattern that you've suggested, but also for the
President.
Mr. Collins. In looking at this--so the problem you just
hit there was exactly the same thing that was discussed in the
Mueller report and how this actually ended up, and, again,
after it was passed on by the special counsel, given to the
Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, who said it
did not have corrupt motives, was mentioned there. And also
basically took into account that they took no counsel from
their own department, that they took that into consideration.
They said, no, after looking at this, there's nothing there to
charge.
The special counsel in his report spent a great deal of
time discussing the episode related to Mr. McGahn writing a
memo to the file. What is your view of this episode vis-a-vis
obstruction, Professor?
Mr. Prakash. It entirely turns on whether the President
thought that he was asking McGahn to create a false memo. And
the report is equivocal on this point because, of course, the
report doesn't know.
The President has forgotten things in the past. There's an
episode from ``Fear,'' the Bob Woodward book, where the
President asks for a document to withdraw from the Korean-U.S.
trade agreement. He gets it put on his desk. They snatch it
back because they don't want him to sign it, his aides, and he
forgets that he asked for it because he asked for it again and
doesn't ask why it wasn't given to him.
So people are forgetful. It's quite possible that the
President didn't realize that he had asked Don McGahn to have
Special Counsel Mueller fired.
Mr. Collins. At this point in time, Mr. Chairman, like I
say, we will continue this again. What could have been an
actual productive markup of bills that actually could have went
toward obstruction--not the obstruction, the election
interference that we've talked about, the foreign interference
that we have talked about that your three witnesses elaborated
beautifully on. I'm glad they elaborated beautifully on it.
But we've already begun this process. I've already asked
for it. We could have had a markup today. Instead, we're having
a rerun. And especially, from our perspective, something that
we could have participated in, in a different way. Our witness
is here, and an excellent opportunity to do that, but not in
the way that was done to us. And in the future, I would hope
that we could communicate better in that regard.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Nadler. I thank the gentleman.
The gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this
hearing. And certainly I acknowledge and thank the presence of
the ranking member.
This is the task and job that is the responsibility of the
United States Congress. And I want to thank the witnesses for
their presence here. I want to be as close to my questioning
time.
Mr. Prakash, did I hit it nearly?
Mr. Prakash. You both are 2 for 2. Perfect. Thank you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank you for your presence here
today.
I wanted to just pick up on the executive privilege. My
understanding of what you just said was that executive
privilege should not be rendered as it relates to Congress. Is
that correct?
Mr. Prakash. That's exactly right. I'm not sure there's an
executive privilege at all, either vis-a-vis the courts or
Congress. But I am more confident of my view vis-a-vis
Congress.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I appreciate that. We had a witness
yesterday, Ms. Hope Hicks, and I believe it is certainly
present in the media that there was a significant amount of
executive privilege. And so you would characterize--you would
raise questions about that?
Mr. Prakash. Well, I think, you know, Representative, my
view is a minority viewpoint. It is certainly not held by the
Department of Justice or the President's office. And that's
true for Republican and Democratic Presidents. They both
claim----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, your view is a thoughtful view. And
I would think that the exercise of executive privilege so
extensively yesterday was an abuse of the rights of this
Congress. And so I thank you for your addition to that to the
record.
Let me ask this question of Ms. Cordero. In the report they
talked about--and thank you--they talked about the idea of the
involvement of Russia, and let me just read this to you.
First they talked about a Russian entity known as the
Internet Research Agency carried out a social media campaign
that favored Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and
disparaged Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The IRA's
goals evolved from general attempts to sow political and social
discord in the United States to targeted operation that by
early 2016 favored candidate Trump.
Second, Russia's main intelligence directorate of the
General Staff of the Russian Army, known as GRU, conducted
computer intrusion operations against entities, employees, and
volunteers working on the Clinton campaign and then released
documents.
How damaging, troublesome, dangerous is that?
Ms. Cordero. As the special counsel has said in the report
and in his remarks that he gave at the Justice Department, this
was a systematic intelligence operation against the United
States, against our democratic processes.
And I would emphasize that according to current U.S.
intelligence statements by intelligence community leaders, this
is an ongoing issue. It's not just limited to the past, it
wasn't just 2016, it's ongoing.
Ms. Jackson Lee. But how dangerous is it in reflection of
2016 to have Presidential candidates and/or their operatives
willingly and excitingly engaging with the extent? I mentioned
intelligence agencies, I mentioned the GRU, of course, some of
them were indicted. They have obviously not come back for
prosecution. But how dangerous is that?
Ms. Cordero. Well, it's really inconceivable that----
Ms. Jackson Lee. And it is dangerous?
Ms. Cordero [continuing]. A Presidential candidate would be
willing to receive information that the campaign had reason to
know was coming from Russian Government-supported efforts. In
other words, the work that is laid out in the special counsel's
report has a variety of different examples of how the campaign
knew it was coming.
It would have been more understandable had the campaign
been able to say, ``We didn't understand.'' But instead,
there's a particular reference to Deputy Campaign Chairman
Gates, where he told the special counsel, because it's in the
report, that they actually were going to create a press
strategy around the WikiLeaks releases. And there's a whole
history of information about----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Mr. Hasen, quickly, based on your knowledge, can the lines
regarding what counts as coordination between campaign and
outside group often become blurry? And this is based upon the
relationship and the campaigns of 2016, in particular the Trump
campaign.
Mr. Hasen. I don't understand the question.
Ms. Jackson Lee. In election law questions about campaigns
coordinating with outside entities often arise in the context
of rules governing super-PACs and independent expenditures.
Based on your knowledge, can the lines regarding what counts as
coordination between a campaign and outside group often become
blurry?
Mr. Hasen. Yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And in that instance, would you look back
on the 2016 Trump election and see the difficulty in what the
Trump campaign was doing and its dangerousness?
Mr. Hasen. Well, in terms of the coordination with super-
PACs, I think there's a general problem across both sides of
the aisle with coordination between campaigns and outside
groups that support them.
What's especially different with the Trump campaign was the
potential for coordination with a foreign entity, which is
something that we do not normally see in our----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Should that be reported immediately, a
duty to reported?
Mr. Hasen. I think it certainly would be good practice to
report any attempt and to rebuff any efforts, and certainly
to--and we don't know if this happened--to speak to the
campaign's general counsel and alert them, who was Don McGahn
at the time, and alert them that there's been an approach by a
foreign entity that is trying to provide information to the
campaign.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you.
Chairman Nadler. I thank the gentlelady.
The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just a couple of points before asking some questions here.
First of all, the Russian interference that's been
discussed here by the panel this morning, this didn't happen
under President Trump's watch; this happened under President
Obama's watch. It was the Obama administration that saw all
this happen and had evidence of it, knew it was going on, yet
did nothing. It was the Obama administration.
Secondly, relative to what was done wrong, whether there
was collusion with the Russians, a lot us, including myself,
reserved our judgment until the Mueller report came in. Let's
not forget that the Mueller report ultimately indicated that
there was no collusion between Donald Trump or his campaign
with the Russians. Secondly, the Attorney General concluded
that there was no obstruction of justice.
Yet here we are again in another hearing relative to a
matter which has essentially already been decided. We're
wasting our time; we're chasing our tails. It is taxpayer money
that's paying for all this.
It's really a faux impeachment, because, whereas the
hardcore, hate Trump, Democrat base despises this President,
wants him impeached, the Democrats still refuse to move forward
on impeachment because they know that will blow up in their
face politically. So we're having hearing after hearing after
hearing about what? Really about nothing.
Last week, John Dean. Yesterday, Hope Hicks. Who are we
going have to have next week? Sean Hannity? It's anybody's
guess.
In the meantime, there are significant, real issues that
are being ignored by this committee and this Congress.
For example, last month alone, 145,000 illegal immigrants
flowed into this country--145,000 in 1 month. We're rapidly
becoming a vast international territory between Mexico and
Canada. Now, I need to attribute that to our committee scholar,
Tom McClintock, who used that definition yesterday, and I think
it's a good one, although it's unfortunate.
Another issue: We've got a $22 trillion debt hanging over
all our heads. This is the committee that could pass something
that I've introduced, and that's a balanced budget amendment
requiring to us do what every State has to do, balance its
budget. But, no, we're not doing that.
We've got 70,000 people that died of opioid addictions last
year. Are we devoting any attention to that? Not really.
Certainly not enough.
Maybe we ought to be focusing on some of those real issues
that really matter. Just a suggestion.
Professor Prakash, let me ask you this. This committee has
spent a lot of time relitigating the Mueller report, as I just
indicated, in fact, over and over. Democrats on this committee
and in the media have promoted the narrative that not only has
the President obstructed justice in relation to the Mueller
investigation but the President is now allegedly obstructing
Congress.
And just last week, Democrats approved a resolution that
authorized lawsuits against Attorney General Barr and former
White House Counsel Don McGahn to enforce subpoenas issued by
Democrats on this committee. How would you assess the merits of
such a lawsuit?
Mr. Prakash. Representative, I guess I'm on record as
saying I don't believe that the President should be able to
invoke privilege against Congress, and I have that view.
I don't think the courts will share that view. As you know,
the courts have essentially required that Congress and the
President negotiate over these claims of executive privilege
and have then only reluctantly thereafter intervened.
Mr. Chabot. So you think it's likely they're going to fail
in the courts.
Mr. Prakash. I actually don't know whether they're going
fail or not. You know, I don't know what the courts will say.
But I do know that they seem to want to have you folks
negotiate with the President first before they adjudicate the
dispute.
My personal view about executive privilege, I happen to
believe it's right, but it's just my personal view.
Mr. Chabot. Okay. Thank you.
Many of the acts of alleged obstruction involve the
President exercising his Article II authority, as you've
mentioned. Can you explain the difficulty in finding corrupt
intent to obstruct justice when the President is carrying out
his Article II powers?
Mr. Prakash. It all turns on why you think he's doing what
he's doing.
So, if the President thinks to himself, I'm having a
difficult time interacting with foreign leaders because they
can't take me seriously and they're worried about how long I'll
be around, that is not a corrupt motive. The Mueller report
says as much.
If, on the other hand, you think he's solely focused on his
own skin and his own personal reputation, that would be a
personal and, the report says, therefore, a corrupt motive.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
I am also out of time, so let me get one more in here.
Relative to the President's power to remove executive
branch officials, do you believe the President committed a
crime when he fired James Comey?
Mr. Prakash. Absolutely not.
Mr. Chabot. Okay.
My time has expired. I yield back.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have noticed some constituents of mine from my ZIP Code,
let alone my district, here. And I'm so happy they're here.
Because they get to see what I have to put up with week after
week after week: colleagues who come here and say that the
Mueller report, which they obviously haven't read, says no
collusion.
Mr. Chabot. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Cohen. Collusion is not even mentioned----
Mr. Chabot. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Cohen [continuing]. In the Mueller report.
Mr. Chabot. I've read the report, and I think most of us
have.
Mr. Cohen. Collusion is not even mentioned in the Mueller
report. The issue was conspiracy. Number one.
Number two, it says no--the Mueller report said no
obstruction. The Mueller report did not say that. The Mueller
report said, if we could find that the President didn't commit
a crime, we'd say that. And it said, we do not in any way
exonerate him from committing obstruction of justice.
Mr. Chabot. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Cohen. And we hear also----
Mr. Chabot. I said the Attorney General said that.
Mr. Cohen. Would you hold him out of order? It's my time.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman is out of order.
Mr. Cohen. And he says we have hearings about nothing.
Hearings about nothing? Hearings about the Russians interfering
with our elections that is in the Mueller report, that is the
whole first half of it, and tells us that the Russians
interfered with our elections? And we hear we're having
hearings about nothing.
This is not 38112. This is not reality. This is the
Judiciary Committee. And it's sad. The Russians did interfere.
Ms. Cordero, you said that the Russians did interfere, and
you said that it would be disqualifying that a political team
would craft a message around WikiLeaks or around the social
media, and you said it's in conflict with the oath of office
that the President takes to faithfully execute the laws of our
Nation and taking that--and also taking foreign information on
an election, which President Trump said he would do.
If this committee gets into an impeachment inquiry, do you
believe these are areas that should be looked into?
Ms. Cordero. Yes. I think if this committee were to
initiate an impeachment inquiry, there is a variety of things
that they could look into.
One of the most important would be the matters discussed in
Volume II of the report. I think the special counsel's report
lays out, at a minimum, four to potentially six acts of
potential obstruction that the committee could continue.
The second probably most important thing that is in the
report that the committee would want to look at is the prior
campaign's willingness to receive foreign assistance, be the
beneficiary of a foreign intelligence operation, and, almost
more significantly, current statements indicating a current and
future willingness to take that assistance.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, ma'am.
Professor Hasen, you've said that the Mueller report said
that opposition research was illegal. Do you have the--you said
the Mueller report cited that taking opposition research from a
foreign nation would be illegal. Is that correct?
Mr. Hasen. So I'm looking at the report on--it's pages--it
starts on pages 184, 185. And then it talks about, going on to
186, Federal Election Commission rulings, so holding that
opposition research counts as a thing of value. And from that,
the report concludes that accepting it can be considered
illegal.
Although it does note there's no judicial decision. That
issue never came to a court, so there was no judicial decision
holding that. But that's what the Federal Election Commission
authority so holds.
Mr. Cohen. And if we had an impeachment inquiry, the
Congress could certainly take that into consideration. Is that
not true?
Mr. Hasen. Yes.
Mr. Cohen. And let me ask you this. If the report says, the
Mueller report says, that taking opposition research is
something of value and therefore illegal to take, if President
Trump, who said he read the Mueller report, read it, would you
presume, as Professor Prakash has said, maybe he just forgot
that he read that? Or did he not read it? Because he obviously
doesn't understand it.
Mr. Hasen. Well, I don't know what the President reads or
doesn't read, but I can tell you that----
Mr. Cohen. I suspect the latter part of your answer is the
most voluminous, what he doesn't read.
Dr. Polinka--Polyakova----
Dr. Polyakova. Polyakova.
Mr. Cohen. I'm sorry. The Russian military was definitely
involved in this, right?
Dr. Polyakova. Yes.
Mr. Cohen. Would that have had to come from Putin? You
mentioned the oligarch, but the oligarch wouldn't have done it
on his own, would he?
Dr. Polyakova. I would just correct to say that we know
from the report that it was the Russian military intelligence
arm that was involved.
It is my understanding, from how the Russian state
functions, that there are several proxies that do the bidding
of the Kremlin. And it is very likely that there was a guiding
principle sent to various proxy agencies, including GRU,
including Mr. Prigozhin, who is extensively mentioned in the
report, to carry out an operation against the United States.
We don't know, because of various redactions, if Mr. Putin
himself gave that order or not, but very likely he was very
well aware of what was happening.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
And I yield back the remainder of my time.
Chairman Nadler. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Professor Prakash, you got an undergraduate degree from
Stanford, law degree from Yale, and you're a professor at the
University of Virginia. It's not the Big Ten, but that's pretty
darn impressive.
And your focus is on the Constitution. Is that right?
Mr. Prakash. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. All right. So, about, I don't know, 10, 12
weeks ago, the Attorney General testified in front of the
United States Senate, and the Attorney General said some
interesting things.
He said, first of all, there was a failure of leadership--
talking about the origins of the Trump/Russia investigation. He
said there was a failure of leadership at the upper echelon of
the FBI. We certainly know that's true. Everyone who ran the
FBI in the Obama administration has been fired, demoted, or
left, and two are under investigation by the Justice
Department.
He then said spying occurred. He said it twice.
Third, he said there was a basis for his concern about the
spying that took place--namely, was it properly predicated.
And, finally, he used two terms that I think should
frighten every single American citizen. He used the term
``unauthorized surveillance'' and ``political surveillance.''
Are you troubled by or concerned by, as a constitutional
law professor, concerned by some of the things that the
Attorney General raised in his testimony a few weeks back in
front of the Senate?
Mr. Prakash. Representative Jordan, I don't know--and I
wasn't here to talk about that. But, of course, I think
everybody ought to be troubled by the prospect that the tools
of investigation might be turned against opponents. Of course,
if this administration did this to the Democratic nominee, I
would be troubled by that as well.
Mr. Jordan. So would I.
Mr. Prakash. Of course, I agree with the Attorney General.
The question is whether it was, you know, adequately
predicated.
Mr. Jordan. Well, let me give you a couple things we do
know. Bruce Ohr worked at the Justice Department. When we
deposed him, he told us a few interesting things about the now-
famous dossier. Specifically, he told us that he had informed
the FBI that the Clinton campaign paid for the dossier.
Second, he told us that Steele was biased against the
President, so much so that Steele had conveyed to him and he
had conveyed to the FBI that he was desperate to stop Trump
from getting elected.
Third, he told them that Fusion GPS worked with Steele to
put this dossier together, who was the entity directly hired by
the Clinton campaign.
And, finally, fourth, he told him his wife worked for
Fusion GPS.
And we know that, when the FBI went to the secret court,
the FISA court, they didn't convey any of those four important
facts to the court. Does that trouble you, Professor?
Mr. Prakash. Yes, it does.
Mr. Jordan. Care to elaborate?
Mr. Prakash. Well, I think, look, if the political
polarities had been reversed, I think other people would be
quite disturbed by the sequence of events, right? That is to
say, if it had been a Democratic administration--sorry--a
Republican administration that started this investigation in
part based on a foreign dossier paid for by political
operatives, I think, you know, the other party would be quite
upset.
So I think it merits investigation as to, you know, why
this investigation, why this, you know, surveillance or spying,
if you will, began.
Mr. Jordan. Let me ask you about one other statement made
by Democratic Senator Schumer on January 3, 2017, talking about
President-elect Trump and talking about the intelligent
community. Then the highest ranking Democrat in the United
States Congress said this: ``When you mess with the
intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at
getting back at you.''
Does that statement trouble you? When you think about how
our constitutional system and unelected bureaucrats are
supposed to answer to elected officials, elected by we, the
people, does that trouble you, Professor?
Mr. Prakash. It does. In my written testimony, I say there
are portions of the Mueller report that suggest that any
involvement by the President in ongoing investigations is
impermissible or improper, and I think that's a mistake. I
don't think it's possible to say that all such involvements are
impermissible.
So I think it's a mistake to threaten a sitting President
with the use of official resources as a means of retaliation
against the President for looking into possible wrongdoing.
Mr. Jordan. Yeah. Last time I checked, Peter Strzok and
Lisa Page never had their name on a ballot. They were never
elected to anything. Yet they ran the two most important
investigations that, frankly, in my time in Congress, I have
been--I've seen. Their name was never on a ballot.
How about this statement? How about when Emmet Flood wrote
the Attorney General of the United States and said this? ``We
would all do well to remember, if they can do it to a
President, imagine what they can do to you and I.''
That's what scares me more than anything else. If the
intelligence community can do what I suspect they did and I
think they did--and I believe more and more evidence points to
it--and this is what the Attorney General and John Durham, U.S.
Attorney, are now looking into--if they can do this to a
President of the United States, they can do it to anyone in
this country.
And that's what I believe, Professor, this committee should
be primarily focused on.
Think about, the President was falsely accused of
conspiracy with Russians to influence the election. Do we
investigate how that false accusation happened? Or do we
continue to investigate something Bob Mueller spent 22 months
on and came back with no collusion, no conspiracy, no
coordination?
And, frankly, it wasn't just 22 months, because when Jim
Comey was deposed by us last Congress, we asked him this
question; he said after 10 months of the FBI's investigation
they had zero evidence.
So, after 32 months of investigating something, zero
evidence of it. And yet this committee wants to continue to go
down that road versus maybe looking into how this whole thing
began in first place.
And there was a question in there somewhere, Professor, if
you want to respond.
Mr. Prakash. I wouldn't presume to tell this committee what
it ought to do, but I support the Attorney General's
investigation as to why this whole process began.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairman Nadler. Thank you.
I would remind the gentleman that the investigation was not
predicated on--it's well-established the investigation was not
predicated on the Steele dossier but, rather, on the
testimony--on the observation of Mr.----
Mr. Jordan. I don't think I said that. I think I asked the
constitutional law professor if that was what appropriate, to--
--
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman does not have the time.
Mr. Jordan [continuing]. Do what they did in front of the
FISA court.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman----
Mr. Jordan. I didn't ask him whether it was predicated----
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman does not have the time at a
moment.
Mr. Jordan. I'm responding to what you just said----
Chairman Nadler. You're not responding, because I'm in the
middle of saying something.
Mr. Jordan. You already said something, and I'm responding.
Chairman Nadler. I would remind the gentleman of three
things.
One, the investigation was predicated on the incident with
George Papadopoulos.
Two, that the Steele dossier, insofar as it was used in the
application to the FISA court, the FISA court was informed in
the memo that the information in the dossier was unreliable and
came from a----
Mr. Jordan. That's laughable.
Chairman Nadler [continuing]. From a source that was paid
for by the Clinton campaign. And--period.
I recognize the gentlelady from California.
Mr. Biggs. Parliamentary----
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Biggs [continuing]. Inquiry.
Chairman Nadler. The gentlelady from California is
recognized.
Mr. Biggs. Parliamentary inquiry.
Ms. Lofgren. In my time you're making a parliamentary
inquiry?
Mr. Biggs. I had stated it before you started, Ms. Lofgren.
I'm sorry. But I'd request a parliamentary inquiry.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman will state a parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Biggs. My inquiry is this. Is the chairman going to
permit himself to rebut every Republican who's asking questions
or making statements in the remainder of this hearing?
Chairman Nadler. No, not every.
The gentlelady from California.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have some questions, but I do want to address the issue
that was just raised. I do think it's important to note
footnote 465 that basically says that the foreign government
conveyed information to the U.S. Government that really was the
origin of this investigation.
And I will also say this. I don't know how many people,
other than myself, have read the entire FISA application that
was provided to the Congress in the last Congress, but I did.
And they provided not only the FISA application but all of the
underlying evidence that was provided to the court. And I
started reading it at 9:00 in the morning, and I ended up
canceling my entire day because it took me until 5:00 p.m. to
read the entire application. And I would just suggest to
members who have not read the FISA application that it would be
advisable to do so before suggesting that there were
improprieties.
Now to the questions that I have.
You know, we've talked a lot about Volume II of the report,
and there are concerning matters there, certainly. But I am
concerned about some of the report--much of it is redacted, as
we know, and I look forward to seeing the redactions and the
underlying evidence.
But there were a substantial number of contacts between the
Russian Government and the Trump campaign in a way that--I
mean, I've been involved in campaigns before. I've never seen
anything like this.
As we configured, in the report, it talks about 170
contacts between the Russian Government, 28 meetings between
the Russians and the Trump campaign. And if you take a look at
indictments and other publicly available information, I think
you can identify--and there may be more, but--272 contacts
between the Russians and 38 meetings. That's just weird. I
mean, I've never seen anything like that in any campaign I've
ever been involved in.
And I'm just wondering--Dr. Polyakova, you are an expert on
Russian affairs. Doesn't that indicate--I mean, that wouldn't
happen without the Russian Government countenancing that.
Because that's a high-profile risk, for Putin to interfere in
the government of others. It could lead to a whole set of
ramifications if it ended up being a losing proposition. This
was a high-risk effort, I think. If I'm wrong, you'll tell me.
Wouldn't that have to be a product of a strategy by the
Russian Government?
Dr. Polyakova. Absolutely. As I say in my written
testimony, what comes out very clearly in the Mueller
investigation and additional independent reporting and also
various statements from our own intelligence community is that
there was a strategic intent to infiltrate and gain political
access to the Trump campaign.
Ms. Lofgren. I want to talk about the--one of the things
that I just can't get out of my mind is that the campaign
chairman, Mr. Manafort--and he has an excuse. He was trying to,
you know, cozy up to former sugar daddy in the Ukraine--but
that he gave sensitive internal polling data not once but
multiple times, and he had his assistants do the same, to
operatives, Russian operatives, Mr. Kilimnik, and at the same
time that Kilimnik and the Russian military were buying ads and
doing a propaganda campaign to influence the electorate in
those same States to benefit Trump.
It strikes me that having that kind of internal polling
data as a show of good faith is unusual.
I don't know if, Professor Hasen, whether you have enough
familiarity in the running of campaigns to say that that would
be kind of an odd thing to do.
Mr. Hasen. I'm not on the campaign side. I'm on the law
side. So I can't----
Ms. Lofgren. Can anybody?
Ms. Cordero?
I mean, we don't have an election manager here, but it
strikes me--I mean, I've been involved in many, many, many
campaigns. I've never seen anything like that.
Has any one of you taken a look at the role that the
Russian military played in supporting third-party candidates
through their social media efforts?
Dr. Polyakova, have you looked at that?
Dr. Polyakova. In the United States specifically?
Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
Dr. Polyakova. I have not seen other evidence, mainly
because in open source that's very difficult to do. We really
need information from the intelligence community. And that is
why the Mueller report is the most comprehensive research on
that matter.
Ms. Lofgren. I'll just say this, that there were thousands
of tweets really aimed at millennials and African American
voters, urging them to support the Green Party candidate and
criticizing the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.
Finally, I'll say that the--my colleague Sheila Jackson Lee
talked about Chairman Gates was going do press strategy with
the WikiLeaks release. Wasn't the WikiLeaks release coordinated
with Russia, in your judgment, Dr. Polyakova?
Dr. Polyakova. It is correct that Russian agents, under the
guise of Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks, did coordinate the release
of the stolen information with WikiLeaks. It also seems clear
from the Mueller investigation that members of the campaign
were eager to publicize that information when it came out.
Ms. Lofgren. My time's expired, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
your indulgence.
Chairman Nadler. I thank the gentlelady.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ratcliffe.
Mr. Ratcliffe. I thank the chairman.
In the Mueller report, Special Counsel Mueller details what
he calls a sweeping and systematic effort to influence the 2016
election by the Russian Government.
Those details are largely set forth in two separate
indictments, one identifying 12 Russian hackers associated with
the GRU and 13 Russian individuals and 3 organizations, part of
the Internet Research Agency.
Some of the witnesses, including Ms. Cordero and Professor
Hasen, provided an accurate summary of that systematic and
sweeping effort by the Russian Government.
Ms. Cordero, did the special counsel find that that
sweeping and systematic effort by the Russian Government to
influence our elections--did the special counsel find that
began before or after Donald Trump's entry into the 2016
Presidential field?
Ms. Cordero. The indictments and information in the report,
but particularly the indictments of the Russian intelligence
officers, indicate that the Russian influence effort predated--
--
Mr. Ratcliffe. Predated. Thank you.
Ms. Cordero. It went back----
Mr. Ratcliffe. My time's limited, but thank you. So the
answer is: before Donald Trump entered the field.
And so, Ms. Cordero, let me ask you. On October 21, 2016,
the Obama Justice Department submitted a FISA application to
surveil a Trump campaign associate named Carter Page. And as
part of that application, FBI Director Comey and Deputy
Attorney General Sally Yates signed a verified application that
included the now-infamous, unverified, uncorroborated Steele
dossier, which specifically states that there was a, quote,
well-developed conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the
Russian Government.
Ms. Cordero, did the special counsel find that there was a
well-developed conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the
Russian Government?
Ms. Cordero. So the special counsel analyzed conspiracy
under criminal conspiracy law. And so, under criminal
conspiracy law, the special counsel did not find that there was
a tacit or implicit----
Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you.
Ms. Cordero [continuing]. Agreement between the campaigns.
Mr. Ratcliffe. I appreciate that. So no conspiracy.
So, Professor Hasen, I actually agree with you when you
talk about the goal of the Russians to sow discord into the
American democratic republic.
And despite the fact that Special Counsel Mueller found
that neither Donald Trump or anyone associated with his
campaign conspired or colluded or was successful in any way in
meddling in the 2016 Presidential election, it's hard to argue
that Russia wasn't successful in that ultimate goal of sowing
the seeds of discord, because our country just endured a 2-year
investigation to determine whether or not the President of the
United States was part of a treasonous conspiracy with a
foreign adversary to steal an election--an investigation that
was started by the Obama administration, who started an
investigation into a conspiracy that the special counsel has
now conclusively and unequivocally established never existed.
So, since the purpose of this hearing is to talk about the
lessons learned from the Mueller report, let's talk about those
lessons and the factors that contributed to Russia's success.
One of the factors that contributed to Russia's success was
the Obama administration opening a probe into the Trump
campaign using foreign counterintelligence spying powers to
investigate a conspiracy that, again, the special counsel
conclusively determined did not exist.
Another factor that contributed to Russia's success was the
Obama administration's intelligence community assessment, which
was used to tell the American people that, not only did Russia
interfere in the election, but did so because Vladimir Putin
was trying to get Donald Trump elected.
Another factor was the one I just mentioned: the Obama
administration's use of FISA warrants obtained through verified
applications based on the unverified Steele dossier, which the
Obama DOJ and FBI knew to be an uncorroborated Clinton campaign
opposition research document. That might have contributed to
Russia's success.
And, of course, we have the Obama administration officials,
some now under investigation for leaking information, perhaps
classified information, falsely depicting a Trump/Russia
collusion conspiracy that never existed.
So I love talking about the Mueller report. I'm just
wondering when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are
going to start asking questions about why Bob Mueller spent $40
million and had 60 people working around the clock for 2 years
asking questions about President Trump and a conspiracy that
never existed instead of spending some of that time asking
about President Obama and how all of this got started.
I'm done.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired. The
witness may answer the question.
Mr. Hasen. What was the question?
Chairman Nadler. I don't know.
Mr. Hasen. I'll take a pass. Thank you.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson,
is recognized.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank the witnesses for appearing here today.
And, Professor Prakash, you are the James Monroe
Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Georgia,
having before that served as a clerk for the court of appeals
of the Federal court, D.C. Circuit, and also having joined the
ranks of those distinguished persons who have had the honor of
serving as a United States Supreme Court law clerk. Is that
correct?
Mr. Prakash. For the record, Representative, I'm a
Cavalier, not a Bulldog.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Okay. Well, you are--that's--I'm
not going to hold that against you.
But the point I'm making is that you have a distinguished
career. And you actually majored in political science and
economics at the University of--at Stanford University. And you
obtained your law degree, and you teach constitutional law and
foreign relations law to young students now, do you not?
Mr. Prakash. Yes.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. And you've read part one of the
Mueller report, have you not?
Mr. Prakash. I'm sad to say that I have not.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You have not. So you--but if you--
you've heard a little bit about it, though, haven't you?
Mr. Prakash. Yes, Representative.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. And you understand that the Mueller
report makes the case that the Trump campaign knew about
Russian attempts to help it win the campaign.
Mr. Collins. Point of order. And I want his full time--I
want Mr. Johnson to have his full time. I'm not trying to stop
his time or his witness. But this brings up an interesting
point that I have tried to bring up since the beginning about
our notification of this hearing and the purpose of this
hearing.
Our witness has stated up front that he was here because we
were supposed to do an obstruction hearing, part two.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. I----
Mr. Collins. Now, Mr. Johnson, I appreciate your--I'm not
trying to argue with you now. I want your time completely.
But it should be at least understood, Mr. Chairman, that
this, again, going back to my earlier statements today, this
was not communicated to us, Mr. Chairman. And I think it's
unfair to the witness to comment on a part of the report that
he was not brought here to comment on.
If we want to do this, fine. I'm not trying to stop his
time. He can have as much time as he wants. But this is
something that need to be addressed, Mr. Chairman, as we go
forward.
Chairman Nadler. That is not a point of order. The witness
can----
Mr. Collins. It was not intended to be a point of order.
Chairman Nadler. You said it was a point of order.
Mr. Collins. Okay. It was a colloquy with the chairman. A
colloquy with the chairman.
Chairman Nadler. Fine.
The witness may answer the question to the best of his
ability.
Mr. Collins. Is the chairman not going to engage me on
this?
Chairman Nadler. No.
Mr. Collins. The chairman is--this is not fair.
Mr. Cohen. Not fair? You're out of order.
Mr. Prakash. Representative, I'm not in a position to
comment on what part one might have said. I----
Chairman Nadler. He gentleman's time will resume.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. I will rephrase my question to you,
Professor. You would admit that it would be wrong for a
Presidential campaign to accept offers of foreign assistance.
Mr. Prakash. Representative, I----
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Is that wrong, or is that right?
Mr. Prakash. I wish to be on the record as saying I'm
opposed to foreign assistance both for Democratic nominees and
for Republican nominees. It is sad to say that both took----
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Reclaiming my time.
Mr. Prakash [continuing]. Foreign----
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Reclaiming my time. You would also
agree with me that it is wrong for a President to say that he
would accept help for his reelection from a foreign government.
That's wrong, isn't it?
Mr. Prakash. I think it's wrong to say it, and I think it's
wrong to do it, and I think both----
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. And you would condemn it----
Mr. Prakash [continuing]. Campaigns did it.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia [continuing]. Would you not?
Mr. Prakash. I just said it was wrong, so----
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You would not condemn it, however?
Mr. Prakash. I'm happy to use the word. I condemn it.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Okay. All right. Thank you.
Now, going on to Professor Cordero, in your experience as a
national security lawyer, would it be reasonable to open an
investigation such as the Russian influence investigation when
a foreign government reports to the authorities that a Trump
campaign official has stated that he has information that
Russia has dirt that it wants to share with the Trump campaign?
Do you think that serves as an adequate basis to open an
investigation?
Ms. Cordero. Yes. So there are guidelines. There are
Attorney General guidelines for domestic operations for the
FBI, and they have to follow those guidelines. There has to be
a predication. They have to have information. And information
from a reliable foreign government----
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. And that information----
Ms. Cordero [continuing]. That predicates that would
justify opening a counterintelligence investigation.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. And that information came to the
attention of the U.S. authorities on July 26--excuse me--on May
6, 2016. And it was not until October of 2016 that the Federal
authorities were made aware of the Steele dossier.
So are you aware of the fact that the investigation, the
counterintelligence investigation, into the Trump campaign
activities began prior to the Steele dossier being revealed to
the Federal authorities?
Ms. Cordero. Congressman, I have to say, I think that the--
I'm only able to go on information that's in the report and
that's publicly available. And it is not altogether, I think,
clear exactly when which investigations were opened. There are
certainly----
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, I would argue with you that
it is clear in the report, in the Mueller report, that the
Steele dossier came to their attention after the information
came in from the foreign government that George
Stephanopoulos--excuse me--George----
Ms. Cordero. Papadopoulos.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia [continuing]. Papadopoulos was going
around in a drunken fit, talking about Russians having
information, dirt on Hillary Clinton.
Ms. Cordero. Yes.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. And, with that, I will yield back.
Ms. Cordero. I agree. There's not--I don't think that the
report indicates that the Steele dossier was the basis for the
opening of the investigation.
And based on everything that is now apparent from the
report about the systematic activities by the Russian
intelligence agencies and how that information would have come
in, there is substantial information that would've justified
opening this counterintelligence investigation. And, in my
judgment, it would've been a dereliction of duty for them not
to investigate.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Gaetz.
Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, are you going to subpoena Robert Mueller?
I'll yield to you to answer.
Chairman Nadler. I'm not going to answer that at this time.
Mr. Gaetz. Well, we're here in part two of ``Lessons from
the Mueller Report,'' and so I'm wondering how we're going to
learn those lessons. During part one of ``Lessons of the
Mueller Report,'' we brought in John Dean to reexamine the
Nixon impeachment. Perhaps during part two we'll get to the
impeachment of Andrew Johnson.
Maybe the folks here could teach us some lessons.
For the witnesses, so that we don't have to individually go
through, here is the question. And raise your hand if you would
answer this in the affirmative.
Do any witnesses here have personal knowledge regarding the
truth or falsity of a single material fact in the Mueller
report? If you have personal knowledge regarding the truth or
falsity of a single material fact, just raise your hand, so I
can figure out who to ask the question to.
So the record can reflect no witnesses have raised their
hand. No witnesses have any personal knowledge regarding a
single fact in the report. No witnesses last week had personal
knowledge.
Ms. Scanlon. Will the gentleman yield?
Chairman Nadler. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Gaetz. Well, I'll certainly yield to the chairman,
because I'm eager to----
Chairman Nadler. I would remind the gentleman that there is
an ongoing controversy that the White House is asserting the
right to prohibit the testimony of any witness with regard to
anything that happened----
Mr. Gaetz. I'm going to reclaim my time.
Chairman Nadler [continuing]. Since he was President.
Mr. Gaetz. I fully understand and appreciate that, Mr.
Chairman. There is no----
Chairman Nadler. Would the gentleman yield to----
Mr. Gaetz. I will not, because I want to respond to the
chairman's assertion.
The person over whom the White House can assert no
privilege is Robert Mueller. And you have the power to subpoena
Robert Mueller. You have used subpoena power extensively in
this committee, and you won't subpoena the person who wrote the
report.
And so this hearing should not be entitled ``Lessons from
the Mueller Report.'' It should be entitled ``Hot Takes from
the Mueller Report,'' because what we're getting are people who
have no knowledge of the facts, no information as to the
underlying information. They're just reading it and offering
their analysis and their hot takes.
But I think that there is a far more critical issue that
our committee should be addressing and that we could address.
Right now, we're at a circumstance where upwards of 5,500
people are arriving every day on our southern boarder. And this
committee has the jurisdiction to reform our asylum laws, to
secure the border, to make changes to ensure that we have a
country that's protected and a rule of law that's maintained.
Fortunately, actually, one of our witnesses is somewhat of
an expert on this subject.
Ms. Cordero, you are----
Mr. Biggs. Mr. Chairman, the committee is not in order.
Chairman Nadler. I'm sorry. Did someone say a point of
order? What?
Mr. Biggs. Mr. Chairman, I said the committee is not in
order.
Chairman Nadler. Oh.
The committee will be in order.
Mr. Gaetz. Ms. Cordero, you are somewhat of an expert on
the activities that go on on our southern border, aren't you?
Ms. Cordero. I do some work related to national security
and homeland security in my capacity as a senior fellow, yes.
Mr. Gaetz. And in 2013, for Georgetown, you wrote an essay
entitled ``Breaking the Mexican Cartels: A Key Homeland
Security Challenge''----
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Now, Mr. Chairman, at this time,
I'm going to interrupt and say that this hearing about part one
of the Mueller investigation, and it's not about----
Mr. Gaetz. I wish it was about the Mueller report. I really
wish it was, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia [continuing]. Down at the border.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman----
Mr. Gaetz. They don't know anything about the Mueller
report.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman will suspend.
The gentleman proceed. The gentleman has the time.
Mr. Gaetz. You wrote, ``Breaking the Mexican cartels is no
easy feat but is a necessary one to secure our southern border,
eliminate the presence of dangerous cartels in our cities,
reduce Americans'' contribution to the drug trade and resulting
violence, and play our role in restoring the Mexican citizenry
to a free society from daily terror.''
Is it your impression that, since you wrote this in 2013,
that the circumstances on our southern border have gotten
better or worse?
Chairman Nadler. I will--excuse me. The gentleman will
suspend.
Since this does not reflect--this has nothing to do with
part one or Volume I or Volume II of the Mueller report or
anything conceivably----
Mr. Gaetz. But, Mr. Chairman----
Chairman Nadler [continuing]. Or anything conceivably
within the ambit of this hearing, of the notice of this
hearing, the witness may or may not reply at his or her
discretion.
Ms. Cordero. I'm happy to respond, Congressman.
When I wrote that report, I thought that it was an issue
that needed attention. It was not, in the beginning of the
Obama administration, something that I think did get sufficient
attention. There clearly is a changed circumstance. We are in
2019 now. There is clearly a humanitarian problem on the
southern border that needs to be addressed.
What you will not find in that article is any mention of a
wall as a response to that challenge nor any encouragement of
the use of emergency authorities to solve the problem.
Mr. Gaetz. I understand that, but you recognized the
crisis. You recognize that it's worse. And I acknowledge that
the wall may be something that divides us. But reforming our
asylum laws, ensuring that we've got----
Voice. You're done.
Mr. Gaetz [continuing]. The supplemental appropriation in
place to make sure----
Voice. You're done.
Mr. Gaetz [continuing]. People aren't dying on our border
and reducing the terror you write about is a lot more----
Voice. Regular order.
Mr. Gaetz [continuing]. Important than hearing from----
Chairman Nadler. The time of the gentleman----
Mr. Gaetz [continuing]. People that know nothing about the
Mueller report----
Chairman Nadler. The time of the gentleman----
Mr. Gaetz [continuing]. Purport to give lessons on the
Mueller report.
Chairman Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Chairman, you guys take way more than your
allocated time----
Mr. Cohen. Point of order.
Mr. Gaetz [continuing]. And then you take my time and
impose on it and then restrict it.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman will suspend.
Mr. Gaetz. This is a total farce, and it's no wonder
witnesses don't want to come here and testify to this
committee.
I yield back.
Ms. Cordero. I'd be happy to come back and talk about
homeland security at another time.
Chairman Nadler. And we may invite you at some other time.
The gentleman has yielded back.
Mr. Collins. Maybe Homeland Security will invite you.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman has----
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman will state his point of the
order.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Is the other side permitted to
impugn the character and badger witnesses?
Chairman Nadler. Nobody is permitted to impugn the
character or badger witnesses.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to answer Mr. Gaetz's question, how are we going
to learn the lessons of the Mueller report? How are we going to
learn from people with personal knowledge or material--personal
knowledge?
The answer to that is, we have material witnesses, people
who actually are the subjects of the Mueller report.
Unfortunately, we haven't been able to do that, Mr. Gaetz--and
you know well that that's the truth--because this
administration has tried to exercise this blanket immunity that
doesn't exist that has prevented us from holding exactly the
kind of hearings that you claim that you desire.
So, yesterday, the committee saw a continuation of that
unprecedented obstruction when Hope Hicks came in. She's
mentioned over a hundred times in the Mueller report. Congress
has the authority to interview her about her time in the White
House. But, instead, there is this blanket immunity claim over
her and every other White House employee.
That's nothing short of stonewalling our efforts, which,
perhaps, Mr. Gaetz, you and I can work together to convince the
administration and the President that it is in the best
interest of the American people to hear from people, a whole
panel of them, from the administration who can actually respond
to questions.
Let me finish.
Mr. Gaetz. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Deutch. No, I will not.
We can't get interviews. We can't get Mueller's files. We
can't get an unredacted Mueller report. We can't hold hearings
with material witnesses. It is obstruction, plain and simple.
Yesterday, Ms. Hicks could not even answer whether she told
the truth to the Mueller team, because the President's lawyers
objected to the question.
This committee must be the allowed to continue its work and
to have witnesses who can answer the questions.
I look forward, Mr. Gaetz, to working with you to implore
the President to stop using this nonexistent blanket immunity.
Mr. Gaetz. Will the gentleman yield----
Mr. Deutch. I will not.
Mr. Gaetz [continuing]. So that work can begin?
Mr. Deutch. I will not because I have work to do.
The Mueller report--Professor Hasen, the Mueller report
details more than 170 contacts between the Trump campaign and
Russians. I want to focus on the orchestration of the June 2016
meeting in Trump Tower.
On page 110 of Volume I, it states that, and I quote, ``on
June 9, 2016, senior representatives of the Trump campaign met
in Trump Tower with a Russian attorney, expecting to receive
derogatory information about Hillary Clinton from the Russian
Government.''
Then it goes on to quote the email, in which it says, ``The
crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father, Aras, this
morning and, in their meeting, offered to provide the Trump
campaign with some official documents and information that
would incriminate Hillary in her dealings with Russia and would
be very useful to your father. This is obviously very high-
level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its
government's support for Mr. Trump.'' That was in the Mueller
report.
Then we heard the President just last week say, if someone,
a foreign government approached, he said, and I quote, ``I
think you might want to listen. There isn't anything wrong with
listening. If someone called from a country, Norway, 'We have
information on your opponent,' I'd think we'd want to hear
it.''
The President denied that it was interference. He said,
``It's not interference. They have information. I think I'd
take it. If I thought there was something wrong, I'd go maybe
to the FBI if I thought there was something wrong.''
Last week, that prompted the following statement from the
Chair of the FEC, saying, ``Let me make something 100 percent
clear to the American public and anyone running for public
office. It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or
receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection
with a U.S. election. It's not a novel concept.''
It goes on to say that ``anyone who solicits or accepts
foreign assistance risks being on the wrong end of a Federal
investigation. Any political campaign that receives an offer of
a prohibited donation from a foreign source should report that
offer to the FBI.''
Professor Hasen, the foreign solicitation statute seems to
be right on the mark. Did the Mueller team go far enough in
exploring this?
Mr. Hasen. I believe the Mueller team did not go far enough
in exploring this.
In particular, one of the bases on which it decided to
decline to prosecute any Trump campaign officials at the Trump
Tower meeting was lack of evidence of willfulness. In order to
be prosecuted for this kind of crime, you have to know that
you're violating the law.
The report says that Donald Trump, Jr., had failed to
voluntarily speak to Mueller. And then Mueller did not subpoena
him to appear before a grand jury to answer questions under
oath about what he knew at the time. I think that was a
mistake, and it could have come out differently had he done so.
Mr. Deutch. And, Ms. Cordero, after the President's
comments, you tweeted, ``It likely would be a campaign law
violation to receive information from a foreign government, but
that's not the point. The point is it's wrong, it's immoral,
and it's contrary to U.S. national security interests. And for
a sitting President, it violates his oath of office.''
That's a strong reaction. Can you share why you believe
accepting foreign help in an election violates the oath of
office?
Ms. Cordero. Because it's a foundational issue. It goes
back to what the Founders say. It goes back to mention of
foreign influence. We can go back in my statement. I cite in my
written statement for the record, I cite to Washington's
farewell address that warned of foreign interference.
And so it is--so that's my view. My view is stated in the
statement that I made there, that it is contrary to a President
who is supposed to adhere and has an oath to the Constitution.
And I would add that that is why the information in Volume
II, the obstruction discussion, is so important. Because it
matters what the allegations of obstruction are about.
The report lays out a variety--a series of potentially
obstructive acts that the President took to derail the special
counsel's investigation. And the special counsel's
investigation was about Russian foreign interference.
So the very acts that are described are--what was he
obstructing? He perhaps thought that he was obstructing
potential inquiry into matters that would affect him or his
inner circle personally, but what he actually was obstructing
was the Federal Government's investigation into Russian
interference.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Johnson--no?
I'm sorry. The gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Professor Prakash, I want to touch on something the ranking
member mentioned. James Comey has admitted to leaking
classified FBI documents to a Columbia University professor in
order to influence an investigation. Under what circumstances
would that be a crime?
Chairman Nadler. Mr. McClintock, could you use your mike a
little more?
Mr. McClintock. The mike's on.
Mr. Prakash. I heard the question.
If Mr. Comey, his motive was to get back at the President,
that would be, under the Mueller report, an improper motive, a
corrupt motive, and he'd be guilty of obstruction of justice.
If, on the other hand, his motive was I want to make sure
that, you know, something bad doesn't happen to the ongoing
investigation, it wouldn't be obstruction of justice.
Mr. McClintock. It's alleged that Hillary Clinton willfully
destroyed 30,000 emails under subpoena. Under what
circumstances would that be a crime?
Mr. Prakash. Representative, I--you know, I--to me, this--
you know, I don't know enough about that to comment. Obviously,
some people find it very suspicious, but I don't know enough
about it to comment.
Mr. McClintock. Let me go on. According to the Senate
Judiciary Committee, Mr. Comey had--quoting from the report--
Mr. Comey had already decided he would issue a statement
exonerating Secretary Clinton. That was long before FBI agents
finished their work. Mr. Comey even circulated an early draft
statement to select members of senior FBI leadership.
The outcome of an investigation should not be prejudged
while FBI agents are still hard at work trying to gather facts.
Could these actions constitute obstruction of justice?
Mr. Prakash. I don't know, Representative. If, in fact, the
investigators prejudged the merits of that investigation before
it was complete, it would be a grievous error, and it might
very well rise to the level of obstruction of justice. But I
don't have any knowledge of that.
Mr. McClintock. Let me read from Gregg Jarrett's account of
this era.
He says, ``Another oddity was the five so-called immunity
agreements granted to Clinton's State Department aides and IT
experts.
``Cheryl Mills, Clinton's former chief of staff, along with
two other State Department staffers, John Bentel and Heather
Samuelson, were afforded immunity agreements, as was Bryan
Pagliano, Clinton's former IT aide, and Paul Combetta, an
employee of Platte River Networks, the firm hired to manage her
server after she left the State Department.
``As Fox News has reported, Combetta utilized the computer
program BleachBit to destroy Clinton's records despite an order
from Congress to preserve them, and Samuelson also destroyed
Clinton's emails. Pagliano established the system that
illegally transferred classified and Top Secret information to
Clinton's private server. Mills disclosed classified
information to Clinton's family foundation in the process,
breaking Federal laws.
Why were these five people given immunity from prosecution?
In almost every criminal case, immunity is only granted after a
witness delivers a proffer, an offer of proof of evidence, that
incriminates someone else and precipitates criminal charges.
Yet no one, Clinton included, was ever prosecuted.
The prospect of a Comey coverup was further fueled by the
inexplicable actions of the FBI when it reportedly destroyed
the laptops of Samuelson and Mills after they received
immunity. Why would the FBI erase or demolish computers with
classified information contained therein? It appears the Bureau
itself committed crimes by destroying evidence relevant to its
own criminal investigation.
But there's more. According to a senior FBI source, quote,
``Mills was allowed to sit in on the interview of Clinton as
her lawyer. That's absurd. Someone who is supposedly
cooperating against the target of an investigation being
permitted to sit by the target as counsel violates any
semblance of ethical responsibility,'' end quote.
What are your thoughts, hearing those observations?
Mr. Prakash. Representative, I'm just not prepared to
discuss that investigation. I will say that under the----
Mr. McClintock. Does it trouble you as an attorney?
Mr. Prakash. Well, I----
Mr. McClintock. As someone who believes in the rule of law,
does it trouble you?
Mr. Prakash. I find many aspects of that investigation
troubling. I'll leave it at that.
I will add that the special counsel's definition of
``obstruction'' makes it possible that cooperating with the
prosecutor for the wrong reasons is itself obstruction, because
it's influencing an investigation and doing so for a corrupt
purpose.
So, for instance, if you decide to cooperate with the
prosecutor solely to save your own skin, that is a corrupt
purpose because it's personal----
Mr. McClintock. You know, let me go under----
Mr. Prakash [continuing]. And you've committed a crime,
which I think suggests that the special counsel's definition is
too broad.
Mr. McClintock. Let me just touch also on the Executive's
use of his constitutional authority.
In the early 1960s, the FBI, under J. Edgar Hoover,
conducted extensive wiretaps and surveillance of Dr. Martin
Luther King. Now, if President Kennedy had called Hoover and
said, ``This is nonsense, knock it off,'' would that have
constituted an obstruction of justice?
Mr. Prakash. No, sir. I wrote before the election that the
next President could fire Mr. Comey, and I wrote that with
Senator Clinton in mind.
Mr. McClintock. Well, when John Deutch served as CIA
Director under Bill Clinton, he was prosecuted for putting
classified materials on his home computer. While he was
negotiating a plea deal with the prosecutors, President Clinton
pardoned him, a clear constitutional prerogative of the office.
Was that an obstruction of justice?
Mr. Prakash. I don't believe so, sir.
Mr. McClintock. All right. Thank you very much.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentlelady from California, Ms. Bass.
Ms. Bass. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
As my colleagues have noted before, the Mueller report
documents more than 170 contacts between individuals associated
with the Trump campaign and Russian nationals or people acting
on their behalf.
You can see from this slide, in the word cloud, those are
many of the--describe the Russian nationals who had been in
contact with the campaign.
One of the most direct interactions between Russian
officials and the campaign occurred at a meeting on June 9th in
Trump Tower.
On June 3rd, publicist Robert Goldstone emailed Donald
Trump, Jr., telling him that a high-ranking Russian prosecutor,
quote, ``offered to provide the Trump campaign with some
official documents and information that would incriminate
Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful
to your father.''
Goldstone added, ``This is obviously very high level and
sensitive information, but it's part of Russia and its
government's support for Mr. Trump,'' close quote.
Within minutes, Donald Trump, Jr., responded, quote, ``If
it's what you say it is, I love it, especially later in the
summer.''
Trump, Jr., proceeded to set up a meeting between the
Russian prosecutor, himself, campaign manager Paul Manafort,
campaign senior advisor Jared Kushner, and several of the
prosecutor's associates.
This is a question for Ms. Cordero.
From a counterintelligence perspective, how significant is
it for a foreign government to reach out to an American
Presidential campaign and offer to help work against that
candidate's opponent? Do you think this happens often with
Presidential campaigns?
And from a counterintelligence perspective, are political
candidates or current elected officials the usual targets of
such intelligence activities by foreign powers?
Ms. Cordero. No, I don't have any reason to think that this
is a normal occurrence with respect to a campaign.
What the Mueller report shows is that the Russians were
crawling all over this campaign. They were everywhere.
And what the information that you just quoted demonstrates
is that the members affiliated with the Trump campaign were
knowledgeable and willing--and there's lots of other
documentation in the report--knowledgeable and willing about
Russian efforts to support their campaign. That email is but
one example.
Ms. Bass. So is this a typical tactic, do you know, of the
Russian Government in its efforts to acquire human intelligence
or compromising information? Do you know of other examples
around the world where they might have used the same tactics?
Ms. Cordero. Well, we certainly know and it's been well-
documented--and I'm sure Dr. Polyakova has thoughts on this as
well--that the Russian influence efforts to effect democratic
processes are in Europe, in Eastern Europe, throughout Western
Europe. Their goal is to try to influence these democracies in
a way that suits their interests.
And that's what I tried to get at in my written statement
as well, is that when a foreign entity, in this case the
Russian intelligence efforts, are trying to influence other
countries, what they're trying to do is influence them in a way
that is in their interests, not ours.
Ms. Bass. So how is it in their interests that Trump be
elected as President? And what has happened since he's been in
office that would've been in their interests?
Ms. Cordero. Well, there's one piece of the report that
describes that an individual who was affiliated with a
nongovernmental organization actually was working on a sort of
new plan for how U.S.-Russia relations would take place. So
there is information in the report that indicates that there
were various ways that the Russian Government was going at
this.
In addition, the report also says that the Russian
influence efforts started before candidate Trump entered the
race----
Ms. Bass. Let me be----
Ms. Cordero [continuing]. But that the effort then changed
over time to actively support the Trump campaign.
Ms. Bass. So, before I run out of time, would you like to
continue to respond?
Dr. Polyakova. A few comments.
One, it is, I would say, part of normal Russian
intelligence operations to try to infiltrate and penetrate
political parties and campaigns. We have seen this happen for
decades now across Eastern Europe and Western Europe. So, in
many ways, the efforts in the United States are part of a much
broader pattern that has continued to this day and continues
today.
Regarding the Russian intent, the Russian intent is never
benign. It is not a benign offer of help when an adversarial
regime approaches a political campaign with potential
information related to anything. That should be very clear in
everyone's minds.
And one thing I will note regarding why it would be in the
Russian interests, there's one specific incident also noted in
the report and elsewhere during the RNC Convention in which we
know there was a line changed regarding U.S. support for
Ukraine. Of course, it is in the Russian interest to see less
support for Ukraine, and as one specific example of how it
would've been in the Russian interest to support the Republican
candidate, Donald Trump.
Ms. Bass. I yield back my time.
Chairman Nadler. I thank the gentlelady.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Reschenthaler.
He's not here.
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Cline, then.
Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.
And I would note, although my colleague Mr. Jordan has
left, that, you know, the University of Virginia does currently
hold a national basketball championship. So that's something to
be said for the ACC right there.
But, you know, this hearing today is about--supposedly
about bipartisan perspectives. And I want to appreciate--I want
to thank the witnesses for many of their perspectives on
Russian interference.
Reading from the Mueller report, ``Although the
investigation established that the Russian Government perceived
it would benefit from a Trump Presidency and worked to secure
that outcome and that the campaign expected it would benefit
electorally from information stolen or released through Russian
efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of
the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian
Government in its election interference activities.''
What I'm hearing from my colleagues is a desperate effort
to dig through the couch cushions, essentially, trying to find
anything they might be able to use to prolong this narrative
and establish that these are--they can't help but push hearings
on impeachment under the guise of oversight.
So I am disappointed, Mr. Chairman, in the way that the
witnesses and the minority have essentially been whipsawed as
to whether this hearing is on Volume I or Volume II. I would've
liked to have heard some more about Russian interference and
what can be done to prevent it, because I think that's a real
issue.
Mr. Cline. Ms. Cordero, you spoke of foreign interference
undermining our system. Is Russia still engaged in election
interference?
Ms. Cordero. According to the most recent information that
I've seen from the U.S. intelligence community, which is in the
best position to assess it, their activities to interfere in
our elections going forward--there was evidence in the 2018
election, and I haven't seen anything from U.S. intelligence
community leaders or the FBI Director that says that it's
stopped.
Mr. Cline. In fact, articles I've seen indicate that the EU
elections 2 weeks ago showed evidence of Russian interference.
And any of the witnesses can respond to that, if they're
aware of it.
Dr. Polyakova. I would be happy to respond to that,
Congressman.
As I say in my written testimony, the interference in the
United States was not the last instance. We have seen
significant interference in the Presidential campaign of
Emmanuel Macron in 2017. We've seen a Russian hack of the
German parliament, the Bundestag, also in that year and later.
So these efforts continue. And just in the recent European
Parliamentary election, which you referred to, that happened
this past May, the European institutions issued a statement
saying that there was significant Russian disinformation that
targeted those European elections.
And I would just highlight the fact that our European
allies are far ahead because of political leadership within the
European Commission in getting ahead of this threat.
Mr. Cline. And I would ask either Ms. Cordero or Dr.
Polyakova: One of the great attributes, benefits of our system
and that enables us to be more resistant to foreign
interference is the fact that we are a decentralized system,
that those decisions are made at the State, at the local, at
the county level, when it comes to machinery and the lack of
standardization. The inability of a foreign entity to hack
into, on a broad, broad scale, U.S. systems, is an attribute,
correct?
Ms. Cordero. I would say--certainly our system is
decentralized, and so perhaps there is an argument that that
decentralization has a benefit.
I am concerned, though--there is a Federal responsibility,
particularly out of the Department of Homeland Security, to
help State and local agencies make sure that they have the best
information, the best techniques, the best advice to be able to
secure our elections. And I am concerned that the
administration, particularly with its attention to DHS, is not
prioritizing that assistance that they can provide to State and
locals.
Mr. Cline. And I would agree that some help is appropriate.
Removal of that State and local authority to a Federal level is
probably endangering that system or making it more susceptible
to foreign interference, would you not agree? If we were to
remove that State and local responsibility.
Ms. Cordero. Congressman, I'll have to think about that.
I'm not aware of proposals that actually would change that
elections be administered not at the State and local level
anymore. But if there is such a proposal, I'd be happy to look
at----
Mr. Cline. Well, I would argue that many of the provisions
in H.R. 1 actually did go in the way of federalizing and
removing authority from State and local elections. And so this
Congress, actually this majority Democrat leadership, is in the
process of trying to remove much of that authority.
And I see I've run out of time. I yield back.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from New York, Mr. Jeffries.
Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the witnesses.
Ms. Cordero, it is never acceptable for a U.S. Presidential
campaign to welcome assistance from a hostile foreign power. Is
that correct?
Ms. Cordero. In my judgment, yes.
Mr. Jeffries. But that is exactly what the Trump campaign
did in 2016, true?
Ms. Cordero. Yes.
Mr. Jeffries. And you believe that accepting and welcoming
that assistance from Russia, a hostile foreign power, is
disqualifying. Is that right?
Ms. Cordero. Yes.
Mr. Jeffries. And what exactly did you mean by
``disqualifying''?
Ms. Cordero. What I mean is that I don't think that it
should be--and this isn't a judgment of the American public--
but that there should be a legitimate candidacy of a candidate
that is willingly willing to receive--openly willing to receive
information from a hostile intelligence service. So I do
believe that that is a fundamental violation of the oath, and I
don't think--and this is a political judgment--that that should
be a viable candidacy.
Mr. Jeffries. And you make that political judgment as a
conservative libertarian. Is that right?
Ms. Cordero. As a conservative lawyer, as a national
security lawyer.
Mr. Jeffries. Thank you.
Dr. Polyakova, you're an expert in Russian foreign policy.
Is that right?
Dr. Polyakova. Yes.
Mr. Jeffries. And, in your testimony, I think you detailed
that Russia is a hostile foreign power continuing to engage in
political warfare against the West. Is that right?
Dr. Polyakova. Yes.
Mr. Jeffries. And that included the Russian operation that
targeted the U.S. Presidential election in 2016?
Dr. Polyakova. That's correct.
Mr. Jeffries. And it's your opinion, I believe, that
Manafort's past work in the Ukraine, quote, ``absolutely should
cast a shadow on Trump's 2016 campaign.'' Is that right?
Dr. Polyakova. I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question?
Mr. Jeffries. That Manafort's past work in the Ukraine
casts a shadow on his work in the 2016 campaign. Is that right?
Dr. Polyakova. I believe so, yes.
Mr. Jeffries. And that's in part because of his association
with Russian oligarchs. Is that correct?
Dr. Polyakova. And his previous undeclared work as an agent
of a foreign government, yes.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay.
And Manafort's Russian and Ukrainian contacts all had ties
to Putin. Is that right?
Dr. Polyakova. I wouldn't go as far as to say all of them.
Certainly some are suspected to have ties to the Kremlin,
although we don't know specifically if those ties were directly
to the Russian President.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay.
And throughout Manafort's time leading the Trump campaign,
he stayed in touch with some of these contacts through an
individual named Konstantin Kilimnik. Is that right?
Dr. Polyakova. That is my understanding of the report, yes.
Mr. Jeffries. And Kilimnik is a longtime associate of
Manafort. Is that right?
Dr. Polyakova. That is what is stated in the report, yes.
Mr. Jeffries. Right. And I think the Mueller report
concluded that Kilimnik had ties to Russian intelligence. Is
that correct?
Dr. Polyakova. According to the report, yes.
Mr. Jeffries. Now, I believe on two occasions Manafort met
with Kilimnik during the campaign. Is that right?
Dr. Polyakova. Off the top of my head, I can't recall if it
was just two or more, but certainly there were several
meetings, yes.
Mr. Jeffries. One of those meetings took place in New York
City in August of 2016 while Manafort was serving as the
campaign manager. Is that right?
Dr. Polyakova. I believe you are correct, yes.
Mr. Jeffries. And I believe, according to the report,
Volume I, page 140: At the August 2016, meeting, Manafort
briefed Kilimnik on campaign messaging and shared internal
polling data related to the battleground States of Michigan,
Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Is that right?
Dr. Polyakova. Yes.
Mr. Jeffries. And is it fair to say that campaign polling
data is a thing of value?
Dr. Polyakova. I will say that I am not an expert on that
particular issue. It's my opinion that it seems to be of value,
yes.
Mr. Jeffries. Is it your understanding that during the fall
of 2016, after that meeting, Russian operatives then engaged in
malignant social media activity and influence-peddling in
Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania?
Dr. Polyakova. They did.
Mr. Jeffries. The Mueller report concludes, I believe, that
the Trump campaign welcomed Russia's interference and attack on
our democracy, right?
Dr. Polyakova. Correct.
Mr. Jeffries. And Donald Trump won Michigan, Wisconsin, and
Pennsylvania on his way to the Presidency. Is that correct?
Dr. Polyakova. Yes.
Mr. Jeffries. It's my understanding that the last
Republican to win all three States was Ronald Reagan in 1984.
Is that true?
Dr. Polyakova. I will take your word for it.
Mr. Jeffries. It seems to me that there's a cloud of
illegitimacy that continues to hang over 1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue and that patriotic Americans have a responsibility to
try to figure out what the heck happened in terms of the
malignant tumor that seemed to have been embedded in that 2016
campaign, what did the President know----
Mr. Collins. Regular order.
Mr. Jeffries [continuing]. When did he know it----
Mr. Collins. Regular order.
Mr. Jeffries [continuing]. And how do we prevent----
Mr. Collins. Regular order.
Mr. Jeffries [continuing]. This type of malignant activity
from happening again.
Mr. Collins. The time has expired. Regular order.
Mr. Jeffries. I yield back.
Dr. Polyakova. Should I respond?
Chairman Nadler. The witness may respond.
Dr. Polyakova. Thank you.
I will only say that the greatest contribution of the
Mueller report and the indictments from the previous year has
been to expose the full, broad-spectrum nature of Russian
intelligence operations and information operations, their
broader toolkit of political warfare against the United States
and other allied democracies.
And I do believe that it should be up to this legislative
body to continue to seek more information related to that kind
of interference in our democracy, which is absolutely corroding
to the future stability of our democratic institutions.
Mr. Jeffries. Thank you.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. Armstrong.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Chairman.
Professor Prakash, just when we're discussing--and I
appreciate you coming. And we've asked you to be here, so I'm
going to ask questions of you of what you are here to testify
for, regardless of what was going on.
But I think I really would like to get into the premise of
exoneration in Volume II in the Mueller report and why that's
problematic for, not just obstruction, any kind of criminal
crime, particularly with a prosecutor. I mean, can you
illuminate a little bit on that?
Mr. Prakash. Representative, are you talking about Volume I
or Volume II?
Mr. Armstrong. Volume II, where they basically say--a
prosecutor saying, we cannot exonerate somebody.
Mr. Prakash. Well, I think it's unusual for prosecutors to
say anything. They either indict or they don't.
And I think the Mueller report, I think, assumes or reads
OLC opinions as if they say that not only can you not indict or
prosecute a President, you can't conclude that the President
committed a crime. And, of course, no OLC opinion says that.
And so there was really no bar on Mr. Mueller coming to a legal
conclusion. And I believe he was told this by the Attorney
General.
Nonetheless, Mr. Mueller decided not to reach a legal
conclusion about whether or not the President committed
obstruction of justice. And that can, you know, either reflect
two things. One, it perhaps reflects his unwillingness to say
that, to cast a cloud over the President. It could also reflect
his uncertainty about whether the President actually obstructed
justice.
Mr. Armstrong. And so, when we go into--and when we
continue--and are you familiar with the clear statement rule?
Mr. Prakash. Yes, I am.
Mr. Armstrong. And can you, I mean, kind of give us some
background on how that analysis applies to the report?
Mr. Prakash. Well, the clear statement rule--there's many
clear statement rules that the courts apply, but one of them is
that statues that are written in broad terms, sometimes the
courts conclude that we're not going to read them to apply to
the President because doing so raises separation-of-powers
concerns.
And so the court in a case called Public Citizen v.
Department of Justice decided not to read FACA to apply to the
ABA out of the concerns of the imposition it might cause to the
Presidential power to appoint nominees.
And then in another case involving not FACA but the APA,
Franklin v. Massachusetts, the court also said we're not going
to read the APA to apply to the President, even though, by its
terms, it could be so read. And, again, the concern was
separation of powers.
I think the interest is more palpable here, the concern is
more palpable here, because if you read the obstruction statute
as applying to the supervisory authority of the President,
you're basically making every Presidential intervention into a
potential obstruction of justice, because one can always say
that the President's intervention was corrupt, because you
don't really know why the President's intervening.
Mr. Armstrong. And separation of powers bring up--
interesting, something you said earlier when talking about
executive privilege and immunity. And I think you and I could
have a long--in a different scenario, have an interesting
conversation about that and where it applies and why it doesn't
apply.
But it brings up a better point. And we've done this
several times today, whether it's Volume I, Volume II, as we're
speaking up here. I mean, Volume II, we found that there was
no--or Volume I found there was no conspiracy, no coordination.
The reason collusion is different is ``collusion'' is not a
legal term. I mean, ``collusion'' is a layperson's term. But I
think it need to be abundantly clear, there was no
coordination, no conspiracy. And we talk about privilege and
immunity, which are two different things, when the President is
exercising his authority versus--regarding separation of
powers.
And last but not least--and I think it's important--when we
talk about willfulness, I mean, ignorance of the law is not a
defense. It's not a defense to the President, it's not a
defense to the President's advisor, it's not a defense to
anybody. Willfulness to engage in criminal conduct is all that
is needed to have a willfulness conviction. I mean, if not, I
have about 300 past criminal clients that should probably sue
me for malpractice. So when we're doing those things and
working through that, I think it's important.
And, with that, I'd yield to my friend from Florida.
Mr. Gaetz. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Ms. Cordero, you've been critical of James Clapper in the
past, haven't you?
Ms. Cordero. I don't think so. Is there something specific
you're referring to?
Mr. Gaetz. Yeah. I'm looking at the essay I referenced
earlier, where you wrote: In January 2012, the Director of
National Intelligence, James Clapper, devoted only three short
paragraphs to Mexico in his annual unclassified Worldwide
Threat Assessment. His understated assessment, however, appears
to be at odds with other high-ranking U.S. Government
statements and actions, which indicate far more grave
circumstances.
So it seems as though there's at least one case where you
are critical of Mr. Clapper's assessment of intelligence. Is
that accurate?
Ms. Cordero. In that 2013, I think it was, Law Review
article, yes, I pointed out that----
Mr. Gaetz. Thank you so much.
I yield back.
Ms. Cordero [continuing]. They had only used a short amount
of the worldwide threat statement to address to border issues.
Mr. Gaetz. It doesn't appear he's gotten over some of his
misassessments.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you for holding this hearing. I was saddened to
hear my Republican colleagues try to suggest what we're doing
today isn't important. I consider no more a sacred
responsibility that we have as Members of Congress than to
preserve our democracy and ensure that no foreign adversary of
the United States interferes with American elections.
When I think of the brave men and women who have served our
country and given their lives in defense of our democracy, it
seems to me that we owe it to them to do our part by conducting
serious oversight and holding those accountable who engaged in
this behavior and quickly pass strong legislation to prevent
this from ever happening again. Nothing could be more urgent
and more important.
Now, members of the President's own administration have
been very clear in stating that Russia attacked our elections
in 2016 and will likely try to do it again. And, in fact, the
conclusion of the Mueller report, after a very detailed
investigation, is that the Russian Government interfered in the
2016 Presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.
And that's a quote.
But President Trump has not only said he would be open to
receiving foreign help in the next election, but he's also
repeatedly disparaged the men and women in the intelligence
community and the law enforcement community who investigated
Russia's actions and who are trying to help prevent from this
happening again. And the examples of that are--there are so
many.
Dr. Polyakova--I hope I am pronouncing that--you have
explained that one of the main purposes behind Russia's
influence operations is to sow distrust in institutions and try
to blur the lines between fact and fiction.
When the President accuses American law enforcement and
intelligence officials of spying and even treason without any
basis to suggest they've done anything wrong, does that help
advance Russia's aim? And if so, how?
Dr. Polyakova. It absolutely helps Russian interests to
hear a U.S. President seemingly not take seriously or not
believe the findings of his own administration's intelligence
agencies, yes. That suits Russia's aims because it suggests
that the U.S. President does not believe or take seriously the
findings of the intelligence community which clearly implicate
the Russian Government and Mr. Putin himself in an attack on
the United States.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
And, Professor Cordero, you wrote recently that Attorney
General Barr's allegations about spying on the Trump campaign
and his announcement of an investigation into how the FBI's
investigation got started has put agents who were following
existing rules in an untenable position if the need arises to
conduct similar investigations in the next election.
You wrote that the current environment may create--and I
quote you--a chilling effect on agents, who may be reluctant to
open investigations on certain individuals based on the
rhetoric coming from the President and the Attorney General or
otherwise to aggressively investigate foreign influence on
political campaigns or electoral processes.
Can you explain why there's a chilling effect and what the
danger of that is?
Ms. Cordero. Sure. So, as a former Justice Department
national security lawyer, that's the perspective that I bring
to this issue. And so what I'm concerned about is, because the
Attorney General has now publicly and openly and repeatedly
said that he questions the origin of the investigation, that he
is then calling into question how agents are authorized and
feel empowered to conduct their counterintelligence
responsibilities.
So what I hope his review does, U.S. Attorney Durham's
review does, is--I actually think it would be beneficial for
them to look at the policies and procedures. And if the
Attorney General doesn't agree with the approval levels to open
these types of investigations or the different processes that
are in place, then it is within his prerogative to change them.
What's unfair to the investigators and the intelligence
analysts doing this work is to have rules that exist and then
disparage them from following them.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
And since the origins of the Trump/Russia investigation
have been discussed by some of my colleagues, I just want to
point people to Volume I, page 89. This will answer their
question.
On May 6, 2016, campaign advisor George Papadopoulos told a
foreign diplomat that the Trump campaign had received
indications from the Russian Government that it could assist
the campaign through anonymous release of information that
would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.
Footnote 465 at the bottom of the page continues: The
foreign government--that is, government for whom that diplomat
worked--conveyed this information to the U.S. Government on
July 26, 2016, a few days after WikiLeaks' release of Clinton-
related emails. The FBI opened its investigation of potential
coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign a few days
later based on this information.
No mystery about how it started. You can wish it was a
different thing. It's right in the Mueller report. Read it.
My final question, Ms. Cordero, is, you know, there's a lot
of evidence about 170 contacts between the Trump campaign and
the Russians, the sharing of polling data, the meeting at the
Trump Tower where dirt was to be conveyed, releases of
WikiLeaks, the President welcoming it and inviting a hack into
Hillary Clinton's personal email account.
And while you mentioned that there was not enough evidence,
according to the special counsel, for a criminal conspiracy,
was there evidence of, in fact, coordination or conspiracy in
some other way? What did you mean by the word ``criminal
conspiracy''?
Ms. Cordero. Well, I think that the finding of Volume I of
the special counsel's report that there was not evidence of a
criminal conspiracy, it really shows the limits of applying
criminal law to what is a national security or a
counterintelligence investigation and problem.
And so they needed to--they were tasked with conducting a
criminal investigation, so they applied criminal law. But that
is different and should not be mutually exclusive from
conducting what is a valid counterintelligence investigation,
the goal of which might be to eventually have a prosecution or
maybe not, but the goal of which is to uncover the underlying
national security threat.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman has yielded back.
The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield some time to
the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Gaetz.
Mr. Gaetz. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, can we get the word cloud with Mr. Kilimnik's
name prominently displayed back up?
Chairman Nadler. I don't know. Can we?
Mr. Cicilline. While we're doing that, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. Biggs. Excuse me. Reclaiming my time. Point of order.
I'm looking at the clock. The clock is not--thank you.
And now I'll yield back to Mr. Gaetz.
Chairman Nadler. Mr. Gaetz, will you yield while they're
looking for the cloud?
Mr. Gaetz. I'm sorry, Mr. Cicilline. You just controlled
the time and could----
Mr. Cicilline. I know, but you just got--I didn't realize
you were here.
Mr. Gaetz. Sorry. I've got work to do here on Mr. Biggs'
time.
So this is this word cloud that the majority has cited,
with the name prominently in the middle, Konstantin Kilimnik.
And I seek unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to enter into
the record a piece in The Hill by John Solomon entitled ``Key
Figure That the Mueller Report Identifies Was a State
Department Intel Source.''
Chairman Nadler. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
MR. GAETZ FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Gaetz. And in this reporting by John Solomon, there is
demonstrable evidence that Kilimnik was actually meeting with
U.S. State Department officials in Kiev to give us intel on the
Russians.
This is the first major factual error of the Mueller
report. Because if you can't delineate correctly between the
people collecting intelligence for Russia and people collecting
intelligence for the United States, it would seem to be a
departure from the necessary factual basis to proceed.
So I'm hoping we can figure out who Mr. Kilimnik was really
working for. But if he was working for us, it would seem to be
that Mr. Mueller was severely wrong about this.
And I yield back to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
And, Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent that an
article by David Webb, published June 18th, 2019, be admitted
to the record.
Chairman Nadler. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
MR. BIGGS FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, sir.
I am intrigued, quite frankly, at the title of this
hearing. I represented NGOs at the United Nations and other
multilateral institutions. I served in a State legislative body
for 14 years and was the Senate president in Arizona for 4
years and the majority leader for 1. And I've sat on this
committee now for--we're at the 2\1/2\-year mark, I suppose.
And I just--I find it intriguing, what's happened today.
I've not seen hearings conducted in this fashion before in
all that, whether it be at the international level, State
level, and, actually, the other committees I sit on and
subcommittees. In fact, I was a subcommittee chairman for the
last 2 years. This has been intriguing to me, to watch, in my
opinion, the devolution of the process in some ways.
But I will say this. One of the lessons I've learned is
that we all see things that we want to see and we all miss
things that we want to miss when we look at indications. But
the one thing that rang out to me is that none of these
witnesses has any--they're not witnesses to any material fact.
They're providing impressions and ideas about what they read in
the Mueller report. And that's okay. That's fine.
But I think Ms. Cordero--and I wrote down a quote from
her--said that no one should be a beneficiary of foreign
operations--excuse me--no political campaign should be a
beneficiary of foreign operatives. Professor Hasen said that
opposition research from foreign operatives would be illegal.
And one of the things that I always thought was interesting
about that is that, in 2016, the Clinton campaign and DNC used
Perkins Coie, a politically connected, influential law firm,
essentially as a pass-through to pay Fusion GPS. And Fusion GPS
cofounder was Glenn Simpson. He hired Christopher Steele.
Steele's a British citizen, a foreigner, a foreign
operative in some ways. Steele was working at that time as an
FBI informant for the Obama Justice Department and representing
Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. That's what was going on
there.
Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, Robby Mook, boasted
about accepting dirt on Donald Trump furnished by Mr. Steele,
probably sourced by criminally linked associates. That would be
illegal. That would be wrong.
That is something that you can gather from the Mueller
report, but we're not discussing that. But I think we should. I
think we should.
And I also think that we ought to give more than an hour
and 20 minutes to review our witnesses' testimony instead of
popping it up to us at the last minute with a change of topic.
With that, I'm out of time, and I yield back.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Lieu.
Mr. Lieu. That's fine.
Chairman Nadler. Did the witness----
Mr. Hasen. I wanted to respond to that, if I could.
Chairman Nadler. Please do.
Mr. Biggs. Point of order. There was no question before any
of these witnesses.
Mr. Hasen. I wanted to respond to that question.
Chairman Nadler. I have always permitted witnesses to
answer the last question and----
Mr. Collins. But there was no question.
Chairman Nadler [continuing]. To make comment on relevant--
--
Mr. Collins. No, no, no, no, no.
Chairman Nadler. The witness will--the witness may proceed.
Mr. Collins. Nope.
Mr. Biggs. Parliamentary inquiry then. Under what rule, Mr.
Chairman, are we operating then?
Mr. Lieu. I'll solve this. I'll talk. I'll ask him. Just
give me the time.
Chairman Nadler. The witness may proceed.
Mr. Lieu. Okay.
Mr. Hasen. I just wanted to respond to a characterization
that I said that opposition research from a foreign source is
illegal. That's not what I said. I said the contribution of
this would be illegal. Paying market rates is not illegal.
And I'd point you to footnote 17 of my written report,
which quotes from the Republican House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, which wrote: ``Under current Federal
law, foreigners are prohibited from making contributions or
donations in connection with any campaign in the United States.
However, it is not illegal to contract with a foreign person or
foreign entity for services, including conducting opposition
research on a campaign, so long as this service was paid at the
market rate.''
And this was made in the context of the Steele dossier.
Chairman Nadler. I thank the witness for serving the
committee by clarifying that point.
The gentleman from California.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Professor Hasen, you had earlier stated that you believe
Special Counsel Mueller did not go far enough in exploring
possible violations of the Federal election laws. I agree with
you. As you know, under the Federal Election Campaign Act, it's
illegal for a person to solicit, accept, or receive a
contribution or donation. And then it defines that as money or
other thing of value. And the Mueller report defines opposition
research as a thing of value.
So let's talk about the infamous Trump Tower meeting. On
June 3rd, 2016, an email was sent to Donald Trump, Jr., that
basically said documents would incriminate Hillary and her
dealings with Russia. And it goes on to say that ``this is
obviously very high-level and sensitive information but is part
of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump.''
A few minutes later, Donald Trump, Jr., replied, ``If it's
what you say, I love it, especially later in the summer.''
Professor Hasen, that could be read as soliciting a thing
of value from foreign power, correct?
Mr. Hasen. Yes. And when that information came to light
well before the Mueller report, I said that the next step needs
to be an investigation. Donald Trump, Jr., and others at the
meeting need to be under oath to figure out what exactly they
knew about the state of the law, what they thought they were
getting. And that could potentially be a criminal campaign
finance violation.
Mr. Lieu. And, in fact, you believe it was not a good idea
for the Mueller team to not have had Donald Trump, Jr., testify
before the grand jury, correct?
Mr. Hasen. Exactly.
Mr. Lieu. All right. You believe it would be appropriate,
then, for Congress to put Donald Trump, Jr., under oath and ask
him questions about that meeting, correct?
Mr. Hasen. Absolutely.
Mr. Lieu. Okay.
We now have a recent TV interview that the President gave
to George Stephanopoulus--and you see the slide--where George
Stephanopoulus asked the President about opposition research,
and the President says: You want that kind of interference in
our elections. If they have information, I think I'd take it.
What the President described could also be criminal
conduct, a violation of Federal election campaign laws,
correct?
Mr. Hasen. So, if you take what he said seriously as a
solicitation, then it is potentially a violation of campaign
finance law, yes.
Mr. Lieu. And there is no Norway exception to our campaign
finance laws, right? That even if it's from a friendly ally,
you can't take a campaign donation from a friendly ally; isn't
that right?
Mr. Hasen. Right. So the statute prohibits accepting
anything of value from a foreign government, hostile or
friendly, or from a foreign entity, like a political party or a
company, and from a foreign individual.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you.
Professor Prakash, I'd like to talk to you a little bit
about absolute immunity. So let me set this up.
The Trump administration has engaged in unprecedented
obstruction of Congress' attempts to get information on behalf
of the American people. And it's not just in the Mueller
report; it's in every line of inquiry.
So, for example, we want to know, why is the Trump
administration currently suing to eliminate healthcare coverage
for Americans with preexisting conditions? We can't get that
information. And we want information on why Wilbur Ross lied
regarding the U.S. Census. Can't get that information.
Now, specific to the Mueller report, we interviewed Hope
Hicks yesterday. We can't get Don McGahn in. And with both of
those witnesses, the White House is exerting what they call
absolute immunity, preventing Hope Hicks from testifying about
anything related to her time at the White House, including
something as simple as, where was your office located?
So they were not asserting executive privilege, which,
Professor Prakash, you have said you believe doesn't exist as a
matter of law within the courts or under the Constitution. I
would assume that this broader thing called absolute immunity
you would also agree is something that is not within the
Constitution. Could you talk about that?
Mr. Prakash. I'd be happy to, Representative.
As you know, the past several administrations have claimed
that people who aren't subject to advice and consent and who
are in the White House don't have to testify. And so the Bush
administration, the Obama administration, now the Trump
administration are taking the same line.
Mr. Lieu. And what is your view of absolute immunity?
Mr. Prakash. I don't believe they have an immunity. I don't
believe they had it during the Obama administration; I don't
believe they have it now.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you.
And today you're the minority witness? The Republicans
called you to testify today? Is that right?
Mr. Prakash. Yes.
Mr. Lieu. Okay.
So let me conclude.
To Ms. Cordero, you earlier have said that the Russians
were crawling all over the Trump campaign, and the Trump
campaign officials knew about Russia interference.
Based on your work in national security, it would be a
dereliction of duty, wouldn't it, for our FBI law enforcement
not to have investigated that as a counterintelligence issue
and to try to do whatever they can, including surveillance, to
figure out exactly what happened so they have Volume I of the
Mueller report?
Ms. Cordero. Absolutely. First of all, they absolutely had
a duty to investigate Russian interference. There's no question
about that.
Then, when they received reliable reporting and other facts
that would have come in that justified opening an
counterintelligence investigation to find out whether there was
ties to the Trump campaign, they had a responsibility to do
that.
Counterintelligence investigations start one place. They
don't necessarily end up where one might expect them to go.
They're not a criminal investigation where the outcome is to
determine whether or not to prosecute someone. Their goal is to
collect the foreign intelligence information to protect the
United States and to be able to counter those efforts.
So I haven't seen anything in the public record, including
in the report, that indicates that there was any ill will or
malfeasance in the use of investigative techniques to conduct
this investigation.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Collins. The gentleman from----
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized
for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In light of a statement made from our friend from Tennessee
earlier about using the word ``collusion'' and not reading the
report, I would like to enter into the record multiple pages of
not only tweets but stories and articles of almost most of the
members on the Democratic side of the aisle, including the
chairman and many others, using the word ``collusion,'' saying,
actually, collusion found in plain sight.
So this is--we're not going to be lectured to by the same
ones using the same language. I ask unanimous consent----
Chairman Nadler. I would be happy to not object to the
inclusion in the record of the truthful information that
collusion was in plain sight. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
RANKING MEMBER COLLINS FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman from--the gentleman from----
Mr. Collins. And be wrong. That's pretty good.
Chairman Nadler. Okay.
The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin, is recognized.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Biggs and other colleagues chide us for having law
witnesses instead of fact witnesses today, which is absolutely
astounding given that they understand that the administration
has blocked all of the fact witnesses from coming and have even
invented a completely fanciful new doctrine of absolute
immunity of executive branch employees to testify before our
committee.
But if they would work with us to get these fact witnesses
and have them actually testify, then we would not have to
simply rely on the reading of the Mueller report.
But let's talk about the reading of the Mueller report
quickly before my questions. Our colleagues return today with
the absurd and discredited mantra of ``no collusion'' and ``no
obstruction.'' The ranking member just, I think, missed the
point about no collusion.
If you read the report, if you get to, I think, just page 2
in the report--you don't have to read the whole thing. Just get
to page 2, and you will see Special Counsel Mueller says: We
don't address the question of collusion, which is not a
criminal legal concept. It is a legal concept in the antitrust
field, but it doesn't play a role in criminal law.
And so that's a matter of everybody's opinion. Now, 157
contacts between members of the Trump campaign and Russian
nationals and their agents, I think, could lead people to say
that there was collusion. But that is a matter of opinion, and
everybody can have their own opinion on it. But to come out and
say that Mueller found no collusion is absolutely absurd.
Secondly, ``no obstruction'' flies in the face of 10
different episodes of Presidential obstruction of justice,
probably 3 or 4 of them that would be prosecutable but for the
Department of Justice policy that the President can't be
indicted.
That's why Special Counsel Mueller actually had a press
conference to clarify that the reason that the President was
not indicted had a lot to do with the fact that there's a
Department of Justice policy that you don't indict a sitting
President.
Now, Dr. Polyakova, let me come to you. I think it is
scandalous and outrageous and dangerous that the President
would say, in the wake of Special Counsel Mueller's finding
that there was sweeping and systematic efforts by Russia to
interfere with our elections, to destabilize our elections, and
to control the outcome of our elections, that he would gladly
accept opposition research from Russia or other foreign
governments.
What effect do you think this will have on Russia, that the
President made that statement even in the wake of the special
counsel's report?
Dr. Polyakova. I believe that sends a clear signal there's
still an open door for continued interference in our elections,
not just to Russia but to other state and nonstate actors who
would seek to interfere in those ways.
Mr. Raskin. There's an open door; that might be the
implication of it. Thank you for your answer.
Ms. Cordero, what does it mean to a power like Russia,
which militarily cannot compete with America, economically
can't compete with American, and they can't compete with what I
think are the real ideals and organizing principles of our
democracy--but what does it mean to them to be able to use the
internet to destabilize our elections if they feel there's an
open door given by people at the highest levels of government?
Ms. Cordero. What the report shows and documents is that
the Russian intelligence services used our technology, U.S.
companies' technology platforms, to spread disinformation. They
purchased ads that were unknown to the viewers of that
information. They pretended to be individuals who were
grassroots activists. They actually set up--tried to organize
rallies and real-world events, so it was the virtual real world
spilling into the physical world.
And so they use the technology platforms. And what the
Senate Intelligence's investigation into this has shown is that
the companies have provided some information but I think we
still don't have a full picture of the way that Russian, as an
intelligence service, and other hostile intelligence services
are using U.S. technology platforms.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
Professor Hasen, operation research is a thing of value,
according to the Federal Election Commission. Foreign
governments are forbidden to interfere in our campaigns by
making contributions. As you've pointed out, they could sell
information at market rates if they go in the business of doing
opposition research. But if they give it to a campaign and the
campaign accepts it, it becomes an illegal foreign contribution
under the Bluman decision, where the Supreme Court upheld the
law against foreign contributions in our elections.
What can be done, legislatively, administratively, to deal
with a political actor who says he would break the law in this
way by welcoming foreign assistance in the course of a Federal
election?
Mr. Hasen. Well, there can be civil complaints filed with
the Federal Election Commission as far as any criminal claims.
If we're talking about the sitting President, I think we
run into issues related to whether or not the President can be
brought up on charges when he's President.
But for anyone else, to the extent that you can show
willfulness of trying to solicit something of value--and I
thing ``of value'' is worth over $25,000--we're talking about
someone committing a felony----
Mr. Raskin. And is there anything----
Mr. Collins. Regular order.
Mr. Raskin. Is there anything more that could be done
legislatively?
Mr. Collins. Regular order.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman will proceed under regular
order.
Mr. Raskin. Is there anything more that is indicated to be
done legislatively----
Mr. Collins. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
Mr. Raskin [continuing]. Or do you think we potentially
have done everything----
Mr. Collins. Point of order.
Chairman Nadler. I will recognize your point of order when
the gentleman is finished.
Mr. Collins. That's not when you recognize point of orders.
Chairman Nadler. Point of order.
Mr. Raskin. If the witness can answer the question.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman will state his point----
Mr. Raskin. Ignore the antics, please.
Mr. Collins. It's not antics when you do the rules.
Mr. Hasen. I think there are----
Mr. Collins. Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Raskin. We had a ruling from the chair.
Mr. Collins [continuing]. A point of order.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman----
Mr. Raskin. The chair said I could complete the question.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. Collins. You can't ignore----
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. Collins. I make a point of order, that under clause
2(j) of rule 11, the gentleman's time has exceeded his time
under the 5-minute rule.
Chairman Nadler. And I will rule that it has been the
practice here to be flexible with the 5 minutes on both sides
and always to permit someone to answer the question once it has
been stated.
Mr. Collins. When it is----
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman----
Mr. Collins. Do you want me to appeal this?
Chairman Nadler. If you want to----
Mr. Collins. I'm----
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired. The
witness may answer the question.
Mr. Collins. He had answered the question. He was answering
another one. He had answered the previous question and was----
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman may answer the question he
was answering.
Mr. Collins. It was a new question.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman may answer the question he
was answering.
Mr. Collins. I'm getting ready to appeal this and you're
going to bring everybody back.
Chairman Nadler. All right. The gentleman's time has
expired.
Who's next?
The gentlelady from Washington, Ms. Jayapal, is recognized.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hasen, why don't you quickly respond to Mr. Raskin's
question. But it is my time, so be quick.
Mr. Hasen. The very quick answer is, yes, including a law
that would require campaigns to disclose foreign contacts would
be a very good place to start.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you.
Ms. Cordero, you in your testimony said something that I
think was very important. You said--and this was your written
testimony. You said we have not done a good enough job
explaining to the American public why foreign influence
matters.
Can you tell me quickly and anybody that might be watching
your top three reasons for why foreign influence matters?
Ms. Cordero. Foreign influence matters because it affects
the decisions that we make about how we self-govern. It goes to
the heart of our democracy.
So, in order for the--to receive--if there's foreign
influence, then it affects how we interact with each other. If
we're the recipients of online disinformation from a hostile
intelligence service, that affects, as society, how we deal
with each other.
Another example is, if there was foreign interference in
actual candidates, that determines who sits here in this body.
It affects who we elect as candidates.
So these are just a couple examples. I've explained more in
the written statement. But it goes to the heart of our
democracy and the ability of us to self-govern in a way that is
in our American interests and not in a foreign country's
interests.
Ms. Jayapal. You also stated that the early reporting and
reaction to the report was skewed as a result of specific
actions taken by the Attorney General. And I wanted to give you
a chance to just explain that. And then I have a question for
you about the Attorney General and his role.
Ms. Cordero. Sure.
So, as Congress is aware, the Attorney General issued a
short summary letter that was sent to Congress before the
release of the actual report. That letter did not explain what
the special counsel actually did with respect to obstruction.
In other words, the letter gave a misimpression to the public,
which then lasted for weeks, even amongst those of us who
follow this stuff fairly closely--left a misimpression that
perhaps the reason this special counsel didn't make a charging
decision was because the evidence was insufficient.
Ms. Jayapal. And, in fact, what did the special counsel do
when he heard the Attorney General's reaction or explanation of
what was in the report?
Ms. Cordero. Immediately the--we now know that the special
counsel sent a letter and the summaries which are prepared in
the report, which are short summaries that the public can read,
he sent those summaries to the Attorney General, asked him to
reveal those publicly. The Attorney General did not do so. And
so----
Ms. Jayapal. And, for weeks, said he didn't have the
information he needed to go back and redact. And so the public
was denied of that information and, in fact, misled about what
was in the report.
Who is the Attorney General supposed to represent, Ms.
Cordero?
Ms. Cordero. The Attorney General has an oath to the
Constitution of the United States.
Ms. Jayapal. Is the Attorney General the personal attorney
for President Trump?
Ms. Cordero. No.
Ms. Jayapal. And in the role of the chief law enforcement
officer for the American public, if an Attorney General
attempts to skew the perception of the Mueller report, would
you consider in a broad constitutional sense that that is
ongoing obstruction of justice?
Ms. Cordero. I'm not willing to say that the Attorney
General--I would have to think about that more--that the
Attorney General has obstructed justice.
What I will say and what I have said before and I'll say
again here is that the Attorney General's letter of March 27th
was misleading. The special counsel did not make a finding on
obstruction because the special counsel felt constrained by the
Department of Justice legal opinion. And, instead, the special
counsel laid out a lengthy factual recitation of potentially
obstructive acts and, if you read to the very last page of the
special counsel's report, specifically says that no man is
above the law--no person is above the law.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. So we are doing a lot of these
hearings because we are trying to reeducate the public about
what was actually in the report.
As the Mueller report explains, Federal campaign finance
laws prohibit foreign nationals from contributing to, donating
to, or making expenditures on behalf of U.S. political
campaigns. And, likewise, U.S. candidates are prohibited from
soliciting, accepting, or receiving a, quote, contribution or
donation of money or other thing of value in connection with an
election.
Professor Hasen, the answer to this may be obvious, but
what are some of the reasons that we have these prohibitions
against foreign nationals contributing to U.S. elections?
Mr. Hasen. Well, I could do no better than to quote Justice
Stevens, who said that we shouldn't allow people who have,
quote, no basic investment in the well-being of the country
trying to influence who our leaders are; that either they could
be trying to manipulate the outcome of the election or they
could be trying to curry favor with whoever is in office.
And if we believe in democratic self-government, then these
laws are absolutely necessary.
Ms. Jayapal. So, in other words, we could have a President
that's not responding to the people of the country but, in
fact, to a foreign government. And we could have a President
that actually wasn't elected by the people of the country, in
terms of where the money for those campaign contributions came.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentlelady from Florida, Mrs. Demings.
Mrs. Demings. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to all of our witnesses for joining us today.
You know, I do believe that the United States of America
has the most powerful and most capable and most prepared
military and that we have the most talented law enforcement and
intelligence officials, and I believe that they are prepared to
deal with any attack, cyber or otherwise, against our country.
But my biggest fear now, which I did not have prior to
2016, was to think about America being under attack or America
being under the threat of attack and the President of the
United States does absolutely nothing about it.
Matter of fact--and we all now know that the President said
a few days ago, and I quote: If they have information, I think
I'd take it.
Dr. Polyakova, you said earlier that Russia's intent is
never benign. And I really wish--you've heard a lot of passion
and concern today. I wish my Republican colleagues were more
concerned, or as concerned, about Russia attacking our
democracy as they are about their colleagues on the Democratic
side providing the necessary oversight.
But, anyway, you said earlier, Russia's intent is never
benign. Could you please, again, elaborate on exactly what you
meant by that?
Dr. Polyakova. Absolutely.
Russia sees itself as engaged in, if not a kinetic war, a
nonkinetic war with the United States and with the broader
West. Russian intentions towards the United States seek to
undermine U.S. legitimacy on the global stage, to destabilize
our democracy, to sow greater division among our public, and to
broadly try to split the alliance system the United States has
led and built since the end of the Second World War.
Mrs. Demings. Thank you.
And switching to the GRU intrusions, in addition to hacking
into servers associated with the Clinton campaign and other
Democratic campaigns, the GRU also targeted individuals and
entities involved in the administration of elections.
Alarmingly, the Mueller report states that victims included
U.S. State and local entities--I'm from Florida; how well I
know--such as State boards of election, secretaries of State,
and county governments, as well as individuals who worked for
those entities.
Professor Hasen, even if Russia wasn't able to change the
vote tallies, what are the types of damage that could be done
if a hostile adversary gains access to systems used by State
and local election administrators?
Mr. Hasen. Well, I agree with you to say that there was no
evidence of vote totals being manipulated, but there was
evidence of intrusions into voter registration databases. And
that could cause terrible mischief.
So, for example, you could imagine people going to polling
places on election day and going to vote and their names have
been removed or their addresses have been changed and they're
not allowed to vote. And decisions have to be made in real-
time.
There's really a danger when you start messing with--
because these are all statewide electronic databases now--you
start messing with those databases. We don't have procedures in
place as to how to handle that kind of massive problem on
election day.
Mrs. Demings. Thank you.
Dr. Polyakova, back to you. Could data like this also
potentially be used by the GRU or other Russian actors to aid
in their disinformation campaigns--for example, by targeting
particular types of voters?
Dr. Polyakova. Potentially, yes.
Mrs. Demings. And is it fair to say that a hostile foreign
government, in this case Russia, potentially has access to or
can weaponize millions of Americans' personal data?
Dr. Polyakova. I don't know the full scope of the
information they have access to. That would be an intelligence
question.
However, given what we know from the Mueller report
regarding the probes of up to 21 States, I would think that
they do have access to that information and that they would be
able to, say, micro-target various electorate constituencies in
the United States.
I would just make it clear, however, that they don't
actually need that, because they have open-source access to
micro-targeting data via our social media platforms.
Mrs. Demings. Ms. Cordero, do you believe that Congress has
done enough, House and the Senate? I understand that the Grim
Reaper is in the Senate. But do you think that we have done
enough to secure our elections going into 2020?
Ms. Cordero. No. I don't think the Congress has passed
election security legislation yet.
I laid out in my written statement a variety of steps that
I think the Congress could take with respect to election
security legislation involving the administration of elections,
updating Commission reporting requirements regarding foreign
contracts, expanding or more clearly defining the scope of
prohibited activity.
I think there are potential requirements that we could put
on social media companies for them to have to inform the
Intelligence Committees about evidence of disinformation and
intelligence activity that they are seeing on their platforms.
I think the intelligence community should have more
obligation to inform Congress about evidence of Russian or
other country election interference and future disinformation
and foreign influence efforts.
So, no, I think there's more, a lot more, that Congress
could do.
Mrs. Demings. Thank you all so very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentlelady from Georgia, Ms. McBath, is recognized.
Ms. McBath. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, each and every one of you that are here
today. Your testimony is extremely important for us getting to
the truth, so we really appreciate you being here.
A number of proposed measures have been introduced in the
House and Senate that would require political candidates to
file reports with the Federal Election Commission if a foreign
national tries to offer help to a campaign. Other proposals
would prohibit campaigns from sharing certain types of
information with foreign nationals. And still others would
require transparency in online political ads.
Professor Hasen, can you provide some of your overall
impressions about whether a reporting requirement would be
helpful and could be appropriately tailored to capture the kind
of foreign contacts that pose the greatest concerns and
threats?
Mr. Hasen. I do support a duty-to-report law, which would
require Presidential campaigns and potentially congressional
campaigns to report contacts from--certainly from foreign
governments and potentially from foreign nationals. I think
that would--if these reports were filed in a timely manner,
that would allow people to ask followup questions and figure
out what's going on.
I also think we need much greater funding and attention on
cybersecurity in the States, because we really need Federal
leadership even though these elections are being run at the
State level. Especially in counties, we know cybersecurity is a
real problem. And so we need that.
And we absolutely need to pass either the Honest Ads Act or
something else that would require that the same rules that
apply to ads on television and on radio would apply to online
ads. It turns out that many of the advertisements that the
Russian Government paid for on social media were not covered by
current Federal law and were not illegal, and that is a
problem. They would've been illegal if they appeared on TV or
radio, but they did not in this way.
There's a lot that needs to be done.
Ms. McBath. Thank you.
And Let me ask you another followup question. What about
requiring transparency in online ads? Is there any reason that
you can think of not to do this?
Mr. Hasen. So we have certain transparency rules that apply
to some ads that are online and more ads that are on TV and
radio. I certainly think that the upside of doing so would
allow voters to know who was the ultimate source of a pitch to
them to vote in a certain way.
And the social media platforms have shown they can't do it
themselves. The kind of disclosure procedures that they've put
in place are not letting voters know who's behind the ads. So
congressional transparency legislation is very much needed.
Ms. McBath. Thank you.
And, Dr. Polyakova, do you think that these types of
measures requiring reports of certain foreign contacts,
prohibiting sharing information with foreign nationals, and
requiring transparency in online ads, would that help prevent
Russian influence campaigns going forward?
Dr. Polyakova. It would be an important but not sufficient
first step.
Ms. McBath. Okay. Thank you
And I'll ask to Ms. Cordero, if campaigns are required to
file a report if they're approached by a foreign national
offering to help the campaign, would that be a significantly
helpful counterintelligence tool?
Ms. Cordero. I think all of the reforms that you've
described are important, and Congress should be taking these
up. I think that they will also have their limits.
So I think there's two parts. Number one, there's more that
Congress can do to make clear in the law what is allowed and
what is not allowed and what has to be reported.
But there's a second piece, which is that these are--we
have to remember these are intelligence operations, and so the
intelligence agencies, the foreign intelligence agencies that
are engaged in them, they're going to adjust and they're going
to try to find ways to get around it.
So I think that these are important reforms and I hope that
Congress will pursue them. And then we also need to recognize
the limitations of them, which is why it's important that we
have candidates that have their eyes open about not receiving
and being willing to receive this type of information because
the foreign intelligence agencies will be coming at them.
Ms. McBath. Thank you.
And, Dr. Polyakova, you coauthored a report for the
Atlantic Council that describes some measures that the European
Union has taken to combat disinformation campaigns. But you
wrote in a recent op-ed that the United States is lagging
behind.
What are some of the key lessons that we can learn from
what appears to be working in Europe?
Dr. Polyakova. Thank you.
That is correct, the U.S. is lagging behind in addressing
the information manipulation throughout that we see emanating
from countries like Russia and other actors.
Some of the key steps that our European colleagues have
taken are, one, for example, establish an interagency group
that coordinates, that has a mandate to establish policy vis--
vis disinformation operations against the homeland.
Currently it is not clear who within the U.S. Government
actually owns the information manipulation portfolio. There is
no high-level position at an under secretary level or above
that has the mandate to carry out any sort of response.
And secondly, most European governments, including the
European Commission, have established a rapid response task
force within their government to be able to understand when
responses to information attacks are necessary, at what level
the response should be, and how the United States--and how
those countries should continue to build resilience and
resistance against such future operations. We have not taken
any of those steps so far.
Ms. McBath. Thank you.
Chairman Nadler. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Neguse.
Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I know we're nearing the conclusion of this hearing. So I
will keep my questions brief.
Professor--is it Professor Prakash? Make sure I pronounce
that right.
Mr. Prakash. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Neguse. Thank you, sir.
Just a couple of quick yes-or-no questions.
You are a Distinguished Professor of Law, correct?
Mr. Prakash. I'll let others decide.
Mr. Neguse. Well, I believe in the written testimony you
provided you certainly identified yourself that way.
You teach at the University of Virginia?
Mr. Prakash. Yes, I do.
Mr. Neguse. All right. You are a witness for the minority
here, correct?
Mr. Prakash. Yes.
Mr. Neguse. When I say minority, by that I mean the
Republican caucus of the committee has asked you to come
testify today, correct?
Mr. Prakash. That's right.
Mr. Neguse. And you submitted written testimony, correct?
Mr. Prakash. That's right.
Mr. Neguse. And on page 13 of your written testimony you
said--these are your words--quote, ``I believe that the
President has committed impeachable offenses by acting beyond
the Constitution and the statutes of the United States,''
correct?
Mr. Prakash. Yes, I said that of this President and prior
Presidents.
Mr. Neguse. And with respect to that sentence, you're
referring to President Trump, correct?
Mr. Prakash. In that portion of the testimony that I
submitted----
Mr. Neguse. It's a pretty easy yes-or-no question,
Professor Prakash.
Mr. Prakash. Well, I don't want----
Mr. Neguse. I hear your point regarding the others, but you
obviously have written testimony for the record.
Mr. Prakash. I wish to make it clear that my comments went
to the prior several Presidents and not just this President.
And I think if you just read that----
Mr. Neguse. Well, I'm going to take back----
Mr. Prakash [continuing]. People will get the impression
that I'm----
Mr. Neguse. I'm going to reclaim my time, sir.
Mr. Prakash. I'm sorry.
Mr. Neguse. I'm going to reclaim my time.
I was hoping you'd confirm it, nonetheless, it bears
repeating, your written testimony that you've submitted to the
House Judiciary Committee for purposes of this hearing, after
being requested to appear here by the minority, in which you
say, ``I believe that the President''--and you're referring to
President Trump--``has committed impeachable offenses by acting
beyond the Constitution and the statutes of the United
States.'' Those are your words, not mine.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Stanton.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Just a few years ago Russian President Vladimir Putin
ordered his government to engage in a systemic and carefully
orchestrated cyber attack and disinformation campaign against
the United States. Volume I of the special counsel's report
tells us that the Russian attack had the central purpose of
undermining our democracy by helping the candidate most
favorable to the Kremlin. It worked. Make no mistake, this was
the most successful Russian attack against the United States in
our history.
With the 2020 Presidential election around the corner,
America is still at risk. To this day the current
administration has done little to nothing to prevent further
attacks, despite everything we know about the attacks that took
place.
Rather that demand answers from President Putin, the
administration accepts denials. Rather than get behind bills to
enhance our security, the administration blocks them. Rather
than insulate us from further attacks, the administration
invites them.
I was shocked but, frankly, not surprised that in a recent
media interview the President said that, quote, ``of course,''
unquote, he would accept dirt or negative information about his
opponent in the next election, even if that dirt was provided
by an adversarial foreign government. He said, quote, ``You
don't call the FBI. Give me a break,'' unquote.
The American people still have questions. What lessons can
we learn from 2016? What are the different ways Russia attacked
us? Who knew about this attack as it was happening? How can we
stop an attack like this from happening again?
Mr. Chairman, I want to say thank you for bringing up these
important issues to the forefront, leading the way to address
them in this Congress.
And I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.
For Mr. Hasen, you saw recently that the Chair of the
Federal Election Commission, Ms. Weintraub, made some specific
comments after the President gave that interview to Mr.
Stephanopoulos. In your opinion, how unusual was it for the
Chair of the FEC to release such a statement?
Mr. Hasen. I can't think of another instance in which the
Chair of the Federal Election Commission has issued a statement
like this. So it seems, as far as I know, it's unprecedented.
Mr. Stanton. All right. And then, Mr. Hasen also, what more
do you think needs to be done to make it absolutely crystal
clear that anyone running for public office should under no
circumstances receive anything of value from a foreign
adversary?
Mr. Hasen. Well, at this point I think further
congressional legislation would be in order to further define
terms that there could be no ambiguity about what's illegal and
to provide transparency so that we would know when there might
be potential contacts between American campaigns and agents of
foreign governments.
Mr. Stanton. All right. Ms. Cordero, several investigations
into the 2016 Presidential election have been conducted. In
your expert opinion, what should the Department of Justice be
doing right now to prevent interference in the 2020 election?
Ms. Cordero. I would imagine that the--and I don't have any
information--but I would imagine that the Justice Department is
continuing--the FBI, which has domestic counterintelligence
responsibilities, and that the intelligence community, which
has foreign intelligence collection responsibilities, are all
working collaboratively to uncover ongoing and persistent
efforts by Russian intelligence or any other hostile foreign
government that is attempting to interfere with our upcoming
campaign season and election. And I think that's consistent
with what current intelligence officials have said.
As I mentioned earlier with respect to the Attorney
General's review of prior investigations, I hope that part of
that review includes clarity so that counterintelligence
investigators here, if they do come upon information suggesting
that there is a threat to--a national security or
counterintelligence threat to a current campaign or a near-to-
come campaign between now and 2020, that they have clear rules
of the road so that they feel empowered to be able to fulfill
their responsibilities to protect the country.
Mr. Stanton. And then one final question, Ms. Cordero.
The executive branch has repeatedly denied that Russia was
responsible for trying to interfere in the 2016 election. The
President said that he credits Vladimir Putin's denial of
Russia's interference, despite being told the opposite by his
own intelligence agency.
To you, is this troubling? If so why?
Ms. Cordero. It is the definitive assessment of the U.S.
intelligence community, as well as well documented in the
Mueller report, that there was a Russian Government-sponsored
intelligence operation directed at the 2016 campaign.
That is from an intelligence perspective indisputable. And
as the Commander in Chief and the individual who has executive
privilege responsibility to protect the country, it is deeply
concerning if the President legitimately does not believe that
assessment.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman yield back.
The gentlelady from Arizona, Mrs. Lesko, is recognized.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I'd like to yield--what?--how much time would you like,
Mr. Collins?
Mr. Collins. A few minutes.
Mrs. Lesko. A few minutes to my colleague and ranking
member, Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins. Thank you. I won't take that long.
Again, I think it is interesting. I do appreciate Ms.
Cordero actually admitting you didn't know what was going on
right now. But hopeful, and I'm of the same way and I have no
indications there's not anything going on between our
intelligence agency and FBI at this point. And I appreciate you
saying that.
Mr. Prakash, you were given the victim in some ways of
having to go through the 5-minute rounds just like we all are
up here; but I want to give you a moment of explaining further
your statement, I believe, in your exchange just a moment ago
with the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. Prakash. Yes. The gentleman, I think, took out of
context my statement. My statement is that Presidents have
exceeded their constitutional powers, and that's true for the
past several Presidents.
If you believe that starting a war in Libya was
unconstitutional, that's an impeachable offense. If you think
that, you know, violating--if you think the President violated
the Emoluments Clause, this President, that's an impeachable
offense.
My statement applied to all the past several Presidents and
not just this one. It's true that particular sentence only
referred to this one, but I think it's a mistake to think that
I was only talking about this one.
My point is that Congress needs to move beyond partisanship
and Members of Congress ought to take consistent positions on
the scope of the war power, on the scope of the Emoluments
Clause, on the scope of executive privilege. And singling out
one statement and using it against one President was not the
point of my testimony, with all due respect to the Member from
Colorado.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Prakash.
I think it's interesting, too, because actually you and I
probably have a difference of opinion on even the War Powers
Act itself being constitutional, and that's another topic for
another day.
I think as we look at this as we go forward, again, it's
just an interesting time that we, again, have folks telling us
what we should be doing when there are bills in the hopper
right now that we could actually be marking up. Instead we're
hearing that we should be marking up bills, but we're not doing
that, and that goes back to the chairman and the majority who
control this time.
With that, I yield back to the gentlelady from Arizona.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Collins.
As I've said before, this is very frustrating to me because
my constituents want me to work on real issues and not do
something that the special counsel has investigated for 2
years, 2,800 subpoenas, 500 bench warrants. I don't really
understand what my Democrat colleagues think they're going to
get further out of this except maybe PR against the President
of the United States. That's all I can imagine.
But originally we were supposed to be here talking about
obstruction of justice, is my understanding, but now it's
moved, the Democrats have moved it to Russia. So I really don't
understand this what I believe is obsession over the subject,
because right here in the Mueller report, page 173, is one
place where it says it. It says, ``The investigation did not
establish that the campaign coordinated or conspired with the
Russian Government in its election-interference activities.''
This is after 2 years, 2,800 subpoenas, 500 bench warrants,
40 FBI agents, 19 attorneys, and they have not found this, but
yet somehow here we're going to rehash all this because we want
to--some people, I think, want to influence the 2020 election.
My question then, since we're now talking, I'd like to talk
about the obstruction of justice part, and my question is with
Mr. Prakash.
In your view, Professor, what's your view of the special
counsel's decision not to make any determination one way or the
other on obstruction of justice? It seems odd to me that a
prosecutor who's supposed to either charge somebody or indict
somebody does it or they don't. Do you think it's odd as well?
Mr. Prakash. I do. I think there's no OLC or DOJ opinion
preventing Special Counsel Mueller from deciding whether the
President committed obstruction. There wasn't one when he wrote
the report, and there isn't one now. He's fully capable of
making that determination. He's fully capable of saying: I
think there's enough evidence to suggest a prosecution or
suggest that there's a guilty conviction. Or he's able to say:
There's some evidence but not enough to go forward with a
prosecution. There's nothing in OLC or DOJ opinions that
prevent that. I think he was told this and he nonetheless
decided to keep the report as is.
Mrs. Lesko. And thank you, Professor.
And I also want to remind everyone that's watching that
there was a joint letter by the joint special counsel and DOJ's
statement on the role of the OLC opinion saying--I'm going to
read it so I don't get it wrong.
``The Attorney General has previously stated that the
special counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that
for the OLC opinion he would have found the President
obstructed justice.''
If that's the answer that my Democratic colleagues give for
why he didn't prosecute, there was a joint statement made by
both of them saying that was not the reason.
And so, again, I'm very short on time, but one of the other
questions, do you think, Professor Prakash, that there needs to
be an underlying crime in order to prove that there's corrupt
intent for obstruction of justice?
Mr. Prakash. I'm not an obstruction of justice scholar. I
don't think there needs to be an underlying crime. But, of
course, if there is no underlying crime, it becomes less likely
than the person who allegedly influenced or obstructed an
investigation did so with a corrupt intent.
Chairman Nadler. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you.
Chairman Nadler. One of our witnesses, Dr. Polyakova, has
to catch a plane.
So with the thanks of the committee, you are excused.
The committee will take a 5-minute break at this point. We
will recess for 5 minutes; and I mean 5 minutes, not 6. The
committee is in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Nadler. The committee will resume.
The gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Mucarsel-Powell, is
recognized.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank to you the witnesses for being here today.
I want to bring up a little bit and read from the Mueller
report how the Russians used misinformation to penetrate our
political system and also sow discord here in the United States
in the 2016 campaign.
So in page 33 of the Mueller report it states that, ``Among
the U.S. `leaders of public opinion' targeted by the IRA,''
which is the Internet Research Agency, an arm of the Russian
intelligence, there ``were various members and surrogates of
the Trump Campaign. In total, Trump Campaign affiliates
promoted dozens of tweets, posts, and other political content
created by the IRA.
``Posts from the IRA-controlled Twitter account @TEN--GOP
were cited or retweeted by multiple Trump Campaign officials
and surrogates, including Donald J. Trump, Jr., Eric Trump,
Kellyanne Conway, Brad Parscale, and Michael Flynn. These posts
included allegations of voter fraud, as well as allegations
that Secretary Clinton had mishandled classified information.
``A November 7, 2016, posts from the IRA-controlled Twitter
account @Pamela--Moore13 was retreated by Donald Trump, Jr.
``On September 19, 2017, President Trump's personal account
@realDonaldTrump responded to a tweet from the IRA-controlled
account @10--gop (the backup account of @TEN--GOP which had
already been deactivated by Twitter). The tweet read: 'We love
you, Mr. President!' ''
And the Mueller team actually shows us a picture of some of
these posts.
I'm extremely concerned that this continues to happen. We
are living on a daily basis, 8, 10 hours a day, looking at our
phones. I am a mom of teenagers who are looking at
misinformation all the time.
I actually had a personal experience where my son brought
to my attention the video that we all saw, the Nancy Pelosi
video, that was a false video. So imagine, if my son was
confused with this video, what we're still seeing right now in
our social media accounts.
So my question is first for Mr. Hasen.
You explained that it is illegal for a foreign government
to give money or anything of value to a U.S. Presidential
campaign. Could running a social media influence operation be
considered a thing of value?
Mr. Hasen. Well, so those were not being given to the
campaign and they were not being done in coordination with the
campaign. But there's a separate part of the same law that
prevents foreign governments and other foreign individuals from
expenditures, from spending money, even independently, to try
to influence the outcome of an American election.
Unfortunately, the way the current statutes are written,
very little of the kind of social media activity that's
described in the Mueller report and that were described in
reports given to the Senate Intelligence Committee are illegal
under current law, and they don't even require disclosure of
the source. That's why it's essential that we pass legislation
that would require people to--so we could at least know who's
behind these things.
And I expect we're going to see a lot of this activity
coming not from foreign sources, but from domestic sources, and
even there it would be valuable to know who is behind this kind
of advertising.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you.
And I know that the Mueller report confirms that actually
these accounts were able to reach somewhere between 29 and 126
million Americans, spreading misinformation on Facebook,
Twitter, YouTube. So I just want to reiterate that for everyone
who is watching or that is paying attention, that what we're
seeing today is the continuation of the spread of
misinformation in social media.
So one follow-up question, Mr. Hasen. Is it illegal for a
foreign entity to buy political ads aimed at U.S. audiences?
Mr. Hasen. So that depends on what you mean by a political
ad. It's illegal to buy an ad that says--for example, we saw an
ad that said vote for Jill Stein, who was a third party
candidate. But paying to run something that said Hillary
Clinton is a Satan, which is something we also saw, if that's
on social media and not on radio or TV in the period before the
election, not illegal right now.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. And why is the first ad illegal? Can
you explain that, please?
Mr. Hasen. Because it contains express advocacy. That is,
it says that you should vote or against a particular candidate.
For First Amendment reasons and other reasons, the laws have
been constructed to differentiate between ads that are about
candidates and ads that are about issues. We have a slightly
broader definition that applies to TV and radio. There's been a
proposal to extend that online. It's in the Honest Ads Act, and
I would support that extension.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Okay. And just one final question
for----
Mr. Collins. Regular order.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell [continuing]. Ms. Cordero.
Chairman Nadler. Regular order. Regular order.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Why do you think it's so important to
have this hearing, since we keep----
Mr. Collins. Mr. Chairman----
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell [continuing]. Hearing from our
colleagues across the aisle that this is not important, that
we're wasting our time?
Chairman Nadler. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The witness may answer the question.
Mr. Collins. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Nadler. The witness may answer the question.
Ms. Cordero. Thank you.
I believe these hearings are important because the special
counsel's report, number one, in Volume I, explains what the
Russian influence effort was. It explain contacts between the
Trump campaign and Russian surrogates. It shows its willingness
to receive information.
And Volume II of the report articulates anywhere from 4 to
6 and up to 10 potentially obstructive acts that are acts that
this Congress has a duty to look into further.
Chairman Nadler. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
The gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Dean.
Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Cordero, in my limited time I wanted to take a look at
the notion of disinformation, disinformation from a foreign foe
but also disinformation from within the country. And the
general definition that I'm using of disinformation is false
information that is intended to mislead; false information
intended to mislead.
I was really struck by the clarity with which you began
your written testimony, that you talked about your focus on the
significance in our national security and our democratic
institutions. And one of your bullet points regarding Volume I
was lessons we can draw from the report to ensure that foreign
interference in our democratic institutions can be looked at as
an aberration and not an accepted part of American elections
and public discourse.
That's my ambition, too. I thank you for so clearly stating
that.
But I want to take a look at the disinformation that I saw
coming from the Attorney General on behalf of this
administration. You commented on this skewed perception of the
findings of the special counsel due to the actions of Mr. Barr.
I'm going to try to do this timeline real fast.
On March 22, special counsel submitted his report. On March
24, the Attorney General put out a four-page summary that was
misinformation about that 448-page report. On March 25, the
special counsel wrote a letter to the Attorney General
including executive summaries that he hoped would be released.
March 27, special counsel again wrote to the Attorney General
that the summary he released did not fully capture the nature
and substance of his work or conclusions and worried about
public confusion.
Finally, after almost 4 weeks--and we lived it right here--
on April 18, the Attorney General first held a press conference
where he said over and over again no collusion, no collusion,
no collusion, no obstruction, and then released the report. And
as we know from page 2 of the Attorney General's report, he was
never looking for collusion because it's not a legally
chargeable thing.
So the President and the Attorney General have gone around
saying no collusion, I would argue, probably hundreds of times.
In fact, in that press conference: No evidence of Trump
collusion. This is by Attorney General Barr.
Can you talk to me about the problem of public confusion,
of disinformation coming from within a governmental
institution, and what is at risk when that happens?
Ms. Cordero. So I want to be careful not to confuse what
the Russian interference effort was as a hostile intelligence
operation with what I described in my statement as the
misleading letter of March 24 from the Attorney General.
I do believe, as I wrote in my statement, that his letter
was misleading, and it created, as the special counsel later
wrote in his letter that was not released for several weeks,
the special counsel acknowledged that the Attorney General's
public statements had created a misimpression in the public.
In my view, the Attorney General had a responsibility not
to create that confusion. And because he is the Attorney
General, because we hold the Attorney General up in an elevated
position as the chief law enforcement officer of the country,
we expect that the Attorney General will accurately, and I
expected that the Attorney General would have accurately
represented what was in the report.
The special counsel's office was clear that the reason they
did not make a finding on obstruction was because they felt
constrained by existing Justice Department legal opinion that a
President could not be indicted. Therefore, they didn't think
they could make the recommendation. And they applied a doctrine
of fairness which said that you can't accuse somebody of a
crime if they're not going to be able to stand trial, which a
President would not.
But I would note that in the very last two pages, if you
read all the way to the end of the special counsel's report, at
the end of Volume II, the special counsel says that we had a
valid basis for investigating the conduct at issue in this
report and the application of the obstruction statutes would
not impermissibly burden the President's performance of his
Article II functions and that this protection of the justice
system accords with the fundamental principle of our government
that no person in this country is so high that he is above the
law, quoting a case from the 19th century.
So I believe that the special counsel laid out their
investigation so that this body would wrestle with the facts
that are in that report.
Ms. Dean. I thank you for that, and I thank you for your
opening clarification. It is I who is saying that absolutely I
agree with you the Russian interference, the Russian
disinformation is extraordinarily grave, and of course members
of this committee are concerned that it is the continuing and
will continue in 2020.
But I do think that it's very critical that we examine what
happens within our institutions and what information is put
out. It is very dangerous for, as Mr. Mueller himself told Mr.
Barr, to risk public confusion, and that's exactly what he did
and continues to do as far as I'm concerned.
So thank you for your expertise.
Thank all of you.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Escobar, is recognized.
Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And many thanks to our panel today.
I just want to say for the record how deeply concerned I
continue to be when I hear efforts to distract and distort the
truth when what is at stake is our very American democracy.
Ms. Cordero, I'm going to be asking you a couple of
questions. I'd like to get through as many of them as possible,
so if it's possible, if you could be as succinct in your
responses.
I want to focus a little bit on Russia's hacking and
dumping operations. The Mueller report states that in April,
2016, the GRU, quote, ``hacked into the computer networks of
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the
Democratic National Committee, targeting hundreds of email
accounts used by Clinton campaign employees, advisers, and
volunteers. In total, the GRU stole hundreds of thousands of
documents from the compromised email accounts and networks,''
end quote. Then the GRU released stolen documents using fake
online personas and later released them through WikiLeaks.
The Mueller report states that, quote, ``The release of the
documents was designed and timed to interfere with the 2016
U.S. Presidential election in order to undermine the Clinton
campaign,'' end quote.
We then heard from Jared Kushner, the President's son-in-
law, long after the report was released, that all it was was a
few Facebook ads.
And so my question for you, Ms. Cordero, in your view, how
sophisticated was this operation?
Ms. Cordero. The social media operation--well, there were
two parts of it, the social media operation and the hacking
operation. Both were--they were government-sponsored events.
They were activities. They were the activities of a hostile
intelligence service. So this is part of the Russian
intelligence, part of their military operation.
The online effort was they had an organization called the
Internet Research Agency which had employees, people who this
was their actual job to do, actually doing the activity of
putting out posts. I don't know how particularly sophisticated
that is. I think on the sophistication, technical
sophistication, we see the hacking activity, which was
pervasive and consistent and deliberately timed in terms of the
releases.
Ms. Escobar. And so you mentioned the military operation
component of this. So literally people would get up and go to
work every day in order to do this?
Ms. Cordero. Well, and that's consistent--yes, and that's
consistent with what we see from other countries, as well. Some
of the Chinese indictments have described with respect to
Justice Department prosecutions against Chinese intelligence
activities where this is--this is their job. This is a foreign
intelligence activity directed at our country. That's what the
Russians were doing. This was an organized government
intelligence operation targeting us.
Ms. Escobar. And why should ordinary Americans care? And I
have found myself having to explain this to folks. Why should
they care about the fact that Russia was trying to manipulate
us?
Ms. Cordero. They should care because Russian interests are
not American interests. So this gets to--this is why this is a
bigger part of our foreign policy conversation, our domestic
conversation, in terms of when a foreign country is taking
intelligence activities against another country, they're doing
it for their own interests, their own geopolitical interests,
their economic interests, their military interests.
And so they determined that this information operation was
in their interests. That is not the same as American interests.
Maybe there's things that we can cooperate on with countries
that have different interests than ours, but we need to pay
attention and it's the responsibility of American leaders in
government to protect what is in American interests. And when
we are the recipients of a foreign influence operation and we
don't understand that, we don't understand how we're being
manipulated.
Ms. Escobar. And why on Earth would any American want to
prevent an investigation into that kind of manipulation?
Ms. Cordero. I don't know why any American would want to
prevent that investigation and I certainly don't know why
anyone who is ostensibly the head of the executive branch would
want to interfere in that investigation.
Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much.
I yield back my time.
Chairman Nadler. The gentlelady has yielded back.
The gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Garcia.
Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you for all the witnesses. I know it's been a
long hearing. And, first off, I want to apologize that I was
not here for your opening statements. Regretfully, I was at
another committee hearing. But like people coming to Texas,
they get there as quickly as they can.
But I wanted to start with you, Ms. Cordero. During last
Monday's hearings our witnesses focused on discussing all of
the evidence regarding obstruction of justice as described in
Volume II. However, I think that there are some things in
Volume I that kind of shed light on the allegations of
obstruction.
So, broadly speaking, when the Mueller report describes
efforts to undermine the special counsel's investigation, what
exactly was the investigation that the administration officials
or the President was attempting to restrict or end prematurely?
In other words, if Special Counsel Mueller's investigation had
never happened, what are some of the things we wouldn't have
learned?
Ms. Cordero. The special counsel's investigation has been
able to lay out in a way that we can see for the most part--and
there still are some significant parts redacted that I hope the
committee will be able to obtain.
Ms. Garcia. Many of us agree with you.
Ms. Cordero. But to lay out what the activities were of the
Russian intelligence activities.
In terms of the obstruction, Volume II lays out a variety
of steps the President took in terms of starting with the
firing of the FBI Director, then trying to encourage his staff
to potentially relieve the special counsel of his duties,
encouraging his staff to then try to cover up the fact that he
had directed, in particular his White House counsel, to direct
the Deputy Attorney General to fire the special counsel.
So I think that the President perhaps thought--and I'll
make that speculation--that firing these different individuals
or changing the leadership of the investigation would end the
investigation. I think the agencies work in a way that was able
to continue it. But had the special counsel's investigation
actually been curtailed, it could be that we wouldn't know all
of the facts that we do know already.
And just as an example, so I'll show you, there's a section
of Volume I that says ``Trump campaign and the dissemination of
hacked materials.'' And this is my marked-up copy of the
report. You can see that the ``Trump campaign and dissemination
of hacked materials'' is mostly redacted in the public report,
but this is obviously information that the special counsel was
able to uncover regarding what the campaign was trying to
receive in terms of information that was hacked by the Russian
intelligence agents.
Ms. Garcia. Right, which is a perfect example of the
reasons we're trying to get a copy of the entire unredacted
report and all the underlying evidence.
And on page 90 and 91 of Volume II of the report, it
describes how the President tried to enlist his former campaign
manager, who was not a White House employee at the time, had no
real role in the White House, Corey Lewandowski, to deliver a
message to then Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
He told Lewandowski to write it down and then dictated a
speech that he wanted to order Sessions to give about the
special counsel's investigation, notwithstanding Sessions'
prior recusal from the case. He wanted Sessions to deny that he
had done anything wrong as a candidate during the campaign.
And then he wanted Sessions to say, quote: Now a group of
people want to subvert the Constitution of the United States. I
am going to meet with the prosecutor to explain this, it's very
unfair, and let the Special Prosecutor move forward with
investigating election meddling for future elections so that
nothing could happen in the future.
He was trying to limit it, right?
So Lewandowski wrote all this down. He gave the notes to
the special counsel's office.
My question, Ms. Cordero, is, would it even have been
possible to limit an investigation like this to, quote,
election meddling for future elections? Why or why not?
Ms. Cordero. If the special counsel would have been fired,
or if the individual overseeing the special counsel's
investigation--so the reason he wanted Attorney General
Sessions to unrecuse was because, I think, he thought that
Attorney General Sessions, if he was in charge of the
investigation, might limit the scope of it.
So perhaps he was hoping that he could put in place an
Attorney General who would not allow the investigation to go
into areas about what the campaign did or what happened in the
White House or the obstructive acts that are detailed in Volume
II. That's what I think the goal of trying to change the
leadership of the investigation was.
And that's why the--and so that--it is possible that, had
the special counsel been fired and a different Attorney General
overseeing the investigation would have cabined the
investigation, then it is possible that we would not have the
information that is in Volume II especially, which is the
outlying of the potentially obstructive conduct.
Ms. Garcia. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
This concludes today's hearing. We thank the witnesses for
attending and for their testimony.
Without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days
to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or
additional materials for the record.
Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:52 p.m. the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]