inchmeal: by inches; little by little
FBI Director James Comey testified before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence today. Open, public testimony is less informative than closed testimony, but they aren’t completely uninformative.
Lawfare’s Live Blog has some bullet points:
- Comey confirmed that there’s an ongoing investigation into Russian election interference and possible collusion between Trump associates and the Russian government.
- Comey reiterated that there was no surveillance of the Trump campaign (a reference to Trump’s wiretapping tweets).
- Comey refused to answer any questions about Carter Page.
- Comey agreed with Graham that Russia is “still involved” in US politics and is engaging in similar interference around the world. This interference presents “the greatest threat of any nation on earth” to democracy in America. However, Russia did NOT change vote tallies.
- Wikileaks is a Russian front.
- Asked about Rudy Giuliani and former FBI official Jim Kalstrom’s that FBI agents were talking to them, Comey says they’re looking into it.
Susan Rice has reportedly declined to testify before the committee. The request, however, came from Lindsey Graham, not the committee. He can’t compel her to testify, the committee can. Graham is likely to be just playing politics. Rice’s lawyer wrote in a letter to Whitehouse obtained by CNN, “Senator [Sheldon] Whitehouse [D-R.I.] has informed us by letter not to agree to Chairman Graham’s invitation to Ambassador Rice, a significant departure from the bipartisan investigations extended to other witnesses.”
Lawfare, a blog that covers national security and the law has Seven Theories of the Case in which they review available public evidence and media reports and ask, “What does it all mean? What possible explanations might make sense of the bewildering facts that have been reported? Are we dealing with Fake News or a Manchurian President—or something in between?” If you’re interested in what the Russian connection, this article for a blog written by lawyers with expertise in national security is a good place to catch up.
Grain of Salt Section
In the world of Twitter, there are some interesting rumors floating around. Claude Taylor worked for the Clinton White House has a few worth looking at.
1. Claude Taylor tweets: IC source: They have Trump on tape talking about trying to shut down investigation. My source wouldn’t be held to more specifics.
2. Taylor also says he has, Two sources within legal community confirming that a D.C. area judge has signed 2 warrants related to Comey’s Trump investigation.
3. There are allegedly two grand juries are looking into Trump Russia: 1) a RICO case 2) a Foreign Agent Registration Act case. The two alleged cases are connected and involve Russians, Trump Tower, and money laundering. He tweeted this afternoon that Comey’s testimony corroborated his tweets.
It would not be a big surprise if a grand jury was convened to address General Michael Flynn’s apparent crimes. The public evidence is extremely damning.
Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates will testify before the senate committee on Monday. She’s expected to tell the committee that she warned the White House very early on that Flynn was a security risk. Since Vice President Pence was involved in Flynn’s vetting, he could be in some hot water.
Jason Chaffetz announcement that he won’t run again, and his abrupt departure for a foot operation are strange. It’s early for him to announce he won’t run again. It’s extremely odd for him to say that he may not finish his term. He’s the guy who leaked Comey’s letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee about Anthony Weiner’s computer. He’s being investigated for an ethics violation regarding the leak.
And inquiring minds want to know why Devin Nunes went through the charade of pretending he’d seen evidence of Obama wiretapping Trump. Everyone else who has viewed the info says there’s nothing to see.
Rice should testify. Her excuse is BS. Since when do we hairsplit Committees vs. Committee Chairmen? If Graham wanted to, he could compel her by holding a (party line) vote tomorrow. Whatever her real reason is for saying no, I don’t care. She should testify.
In my view, Ms. Rice should testify if and only if she has information that is relevant to the mission of the committee, which is to investigate Russian interference with the election. What neither Ms. Rice nor the Democrats should encourage is to distract the investigation from that focus by partisan smokescreens emanating from the GOP or the White House.
I find her explanation telling, and not “pointless” at all. Here is that explanation (from the cited link):
Mr. Graham’s own words confirm her stance:
This committee is investigating Russia. It is not and should not be investigating Ms. Rice.
Asking her to testify does not equal investigating her.
A Congressional Chairman asked her to testify. She better have a better reason than “The Ranking Member disagrees.”
Your naivete is sweet.
The GOP and White House have been attempting to smear Ms. Rice (as was noted below), just as the same thugs abused their power in the entire Benghazi circus.
The only reason she was asked to testify was to continue the smear campaign. She rightly chose to skip the game, unless and until compelled by a subpoena.
This is curious logic.
If she’s being smeared, what better way to refute it than to testify openly in front of the nation? I assume the truth favors her. Refusing to testify makes her look bad.
Rice was smeared by the Trump Administration for diversionary purposes and Obama hatred. Graham was playing politics; she refused to play.
If they need her, they can subpoena her.
I would, on principle.
And if Dems controlled the committee and our chair wanted a GOP official to testify, I’d say the same thing.
I invite you to offer an example where a Democratically-controlled committee used a request to testify as an opportunity to harass the witness in any way comparable to way the GOP in general and Mr. Graham in particular treated Ms. Rice, Ms. Clinton, and other targets of their vitriol.
When the GOP resumes working from the same set of principles that you and I take for granted, then I will agree with you.
So we’ve given up on Congress now?
My point is really simple and perhaps not even naive: Congress has power, and we’re supposed to respect that power. Period.
Mr. Graham can issue a subpoena if he wishes Ms. Rice to testify. That is how he can rightly exercise his power. He has not done so.
It is not “giving up on Congress” to insist that elected representatives live up to the responsibilities and obligations of the offices they hold.
We can agree to disagree, but I think it’s petty to force them to issue a subpoena. Graham asked in his capacity as Chair. His motive is secondary.
I think you’re missing the point Jim. Lindsey Graham DOES NOT EQUAL Congress. He’s part of a committee. Any authority he has derives from that committee and/or Congress.
Sheldon Whitehouse explicitly told Rice not to respond after she said she would attend. If the committee wants her, they can discuss and vote on it in public.
OK, Mark, let’s say it happened that way. Are you OK with that precedent?
So, when we control the Committee and Whitehouse is Chair, we need the Ranking Member’s agreement on every witness we need to call?
Put all process aside for a second — Graham called her. She looked for a reason not to comply. That’s not right.
1. You’re making an invalid assumption that Lindsey Graham speaks for the entire committee. He doesn’t.
2. Rice didn’t “look” for a reason NOT to comply. She planned to comply until Sheldon Whitehouse asked her not to comply. A very good reason not to comply.
3. Rice is irrelevant to the Trump Russia issue, but Graham clearly wants to drag her into the President’s smear campaign. Even though House Intelligence members of both parties looked through the alleged “evidence” and decided it was all bullshit.
Jim I like a lot of your posts here, but on the Adam Jones thread and now on the Rice testimony you are being a contrarian for contrarians sake.
You know full well Rice was going to be brought there to distract us with Benghazi and wiretapping allegations and anything but to talk about what she knew about the Russia investigation in her capacity as NSA. And seeing how the FBI and NDI were in charge of that-not her purview as head of the NSC-it’s not clear how that is relevant.
And I say this as a real critic of Rice on a host of policies. I think she was probably one of the worst foreign policy advisers on Obama’s team, after the insufferable and unqualified Ben Rhodes.
Yes jconway I know all that.
AND I DON’T CARE, OK? I DON’T GIVE A RAT’S ASS IF SUSAN RICE (WHO I HAVE DEFENDED HERE) gets embarrassed and is slowed down a bit on the road to her next job.
What I do care about is having functioning government. And sorry, but Lindsey Graham has some power at the moment. Susan Rice does not. There is no reason for her to deny this.
You love to say “This is what helps Trump.” No, THIS is what helps Trump, turning everything partisan. Susan Rice took public money for years serving her country admirably — well, sorry, that obligations continues. I’m mad at her for even making this a fight. No one wins, we all lose.
1. Chairs get a lot of deference in these matters. If he called for a vote, he’d win it.
2. I strongly disagree with this. One Senator asking a witness not to comply? How can that possibly be OK? It’s a terrible, terrible precedent.
3. Graham is hardly my favorite Senator, but he certainly has credibility on not carrying Trump’s water. If he wants to expand the investigation, I say let him as long as he keeps his eye on the ball.
Isn’t that a problem for the senate and the committee rather than Rice?
@Mark — The precedent, you mean? Yes. I don’t pin this all on Rice; Whitehouse is being short-sighted. This will be noticed, and if it’s acknowledged as a valid reason, it will come back to bite us.
A bunch of 1’s to uprate JimC from me, until that feature is available again.
Thanks Bob. n/t
So are you arguing Rice has a responsibility to testify? Do you not doubt that testimony would be a waste of time and be used by partisan Republicans to distract from the Russia investigation?
I will say it may be time for a 9/11 Commission for this thing to prevent Republicans from derailing the investigations and to make sure it’s recommendations aren’t tinged as Democratic payback for the Trump victory.
I am really worried about Russian capabilities on this-on my local NPR we just found out they had interfered in an IL state senate district. I have no idea why-maybe as a test run for a bigger race-but this really can undermine our democracy up and down the ballot. And this time they were getting voters private information which would seem to sway the results more than just releasing confidential emails from partisan officials. Now the Russians run robocalls, credit reports and other forms of interference and intimidation. Pinpointed to a specific district of the country.
So whatever you’re feelings on how this effected Clinton and how directly Trump or his campaign was involved-they are developing capabilities that will sway elections.
Graham is making a weak, partisan power play, possibly to distract from Sally Yates’s testimony, possibly to beat up on Rice. Graham isn’t a fan of Trump, but that doesn’t mean he’s not a partisan. And given the urging of the ranking member of the committee that she not testify, it would be stupid to show up.
Rice’s legal reasoning is defensible, if not extremely compelling. Given that she didn’t say she wouldn’t testify, it’s hard to fault her.
Letter from Rice’s attorney:
While Ambassador Rice commends the Subcommittee’s efforts to examine this matter of extraordinary national significance, it is extremely rare for the Congress to request the testimony of a former senior advisor to the President given the longstanding and well-recognized separation of powers concerns at issue. Moreover, Chairman Graham’s invitation was extended only after the hearing was noticed, less than two weeks before the hearing was scheduled to occur, and
without consultation with Ambassador Rice, a professional courtesy that would customarily be extended to any witness. Notwithstanding the significance of these concerns, Ambassador Rice is prepared to assist Congressional inquiries into Russian election interference because of the important national interests at stake, provided they are conducted in a bipartisan manner, and as appropriate, in classified session.
In this case, however, Senator Whitehouse has informed us by letter that he did not agree to Chairman Graham’s invitation to Ambassador Rice, a significant departure from the bipartisan invitations extended to other witnesses. Under these circumstances, Ambassador Rice respectfully declines Senator Graham’s invitation to testify.
Again, and as Ambassador Rice has stated publicly, she supports and is committed to assisting the bipartisan Congressional inquiries into Russian interference in the 2016 election, given the utmost importance of this matter to our national security.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3699576/Susan-Rice-Letter.pdf
This is good to see. Blunt is a Republican.
Andrea MitchellVerified account @mitchellreports 20m20 minutes ago
.@RoyBlunt: I think there’s no question there was Russian interference in our elections…need to look at in a way that prepares us for 2018
Yeah, Blunt is a Republican, and the best way he can prepare for 2018 is to stall and to cover up. The evidence is clear that Comey wanted to manipulate the media and violated DOJ rules doing so… expect no less from Senator Blunt.
Republicans play to win. And if that means colluding with Russians, then they think, “so be it.”