TODAY IN CONGRESS (TIC):
Your One Stop Shop For Learning What Our Congress Critters Are Up To!
Today’s Headlines:
Rod Rosenstein Defends Himself, But Fails To Defend The FBI In Wednesday’s Testimony
___________________________________________________________________________________________
House Judiciary Committee to Conduct Hearings On Police Brutality Next Week
____________________________________________________________
DAY 21 Since the House Passed the HEROES Bill and Not A Peep From Mitch!
Here’s today’s schedule with the events I think may be the most interesting in bold. You can watch C-Span HERE. NOTE: Sometimes C-Span posts additional Congressional events not on my list, later in the day.
BTW — Sorry I there was no TIC yesterday, but not a lot going on (in Congress anyway) and sometimes real life gets busy and gets in the way of my posts.
Today’s Events:
House — Not in Session
Senate — Not in Session
Wednesday’s & Thursday’s Votes:
House — No Votes
Senate — No Significant Votes.
Comments:
Today Topics/Events — Nothing today because it’s Friday. But in closing out the week, I would just like to remind everyone that while police brutality and racial in justice is rightfully grabbing our attention, we are still in the middle of a COVID-19 outbreak that is escalating in certain parts of the country and an economic crisis the likes of which we have not seen since the Great Depression, all while Trump and McConnell ignore both.
COMMITTEE ACTIVITY:
Introduction:
NOTE #s1 — 4: To keep this diary as short as possible while still providing a means for new readers to obtain a chronological history on each Committee Activity topic/event below, I have squirreled away the Background information on these topics in other previously posted diaries. So each topic’s Background section below will include links to my September 26, 2019 Diary for Background prior to November 22, my November 22, 2019, 2019 Diary for Background between November 22, 2019 and January 30, 2020, and my January 30, 2020 Diary for Background from January 30, 2020 until today. This and other regular TIC diaries will only include Recent Developments (stuff that happened the day before) and New Developments on each Committee topic/event. Also, I will discontinue posting Committee topics/events that have been inactive for weeks, but their histories will remain in the Background Diaries. If something new happens on these discontinued topics/events, I will bring them back from the dead and post it in the regular TIC.
Now on with the show. (New and Important stuff in bold)
Senate Judiciary Hearing into Past FBI Trump/Russia Investigation FISA Warrants —
Background — None.
Recent Developments — None.
New Developments — On Wednesday (June 3), Former Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. According to this CNN Report, this is what he had to say:
Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said Wednesday he would not have signed off on a foreign surveillance warrant used in the FBI's Russia investigation, but he defended his appointment of former special counsel Robert Mueller to investigate Russian election interference and President Donald Trump's associates.
Rosenstein testified Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Senate Republicans' first hearing taking aim at the origins of the FBI's Russia investigation. Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and close Trump ally, pressed Rosenstein on whether Mueller should have been appointed at all, given that no conspiracy was ultimately found between Trump's team and Russia.
"The whole concept that the campaign was colluding with the Russians, there was no there there in August 2017. Do you agree with that general statement?" Graham asked
"I agree with that general statement," Rosenstein responded.
But the former No. 2 at the Justice Department, who supervised the Mueller investigation, said there was "reasonable suspicion" to investigate and the probe was properly opened, even if no conspiracy was ultimately found. Appointing Mueller was the correct call, Rosenstein said.
"I believe at the time, senator, and I still believe it was the right decision under the circumstances," Rosenstein said. "I think it's important to establish that an independent investigation found that the Russians sought to interfere in the election and that no Americans conspired with them."
Notice the part I bolded. Graham asks a leading question and Rosenstein gives him the answer he wants. But what gets left out of this Q & A is the fact that Mueller never answered the “collusion” question at all as he was originally tasked to do since he viewed his task as conducting a “criminal” investigation and “collusion” although it sounds bad, is not a crime spelled out in Federal Statute. Instead he opted to investigate “conspiracy against the United States” which is a Federal crime. But what was also left out of the above Q & A was the fact that Mueller could not establish or prove a Trump/Russia “conspiracy” since much of the documentary evidence that could have proved such a conspiracy was either destroyed before his investigation began or kept out of his legal reach, as documented in the Mueller Report and reiterated in Mueller’s testimony to Congress. In the end, the truth is that although the Mueller Report listed numerous examples of Russian interaction with the Trump Campaign which “smelled” like “conspiracy”, he was denied the “smoking gun” that would provide the concrete proof needed to bring charges. Yes, there is also the fact that even if he obtained such proof, Mueller would not have charged Trump while he was in office due to adherence to the misguided and outdated DoJ policy of not charging a sitting President.
The point is that Trump was not exonerated by Mueller as the above Q & A would suggest.
BTW — I will not be regularly covering this Senate Judiciary Committee investigation of the investigators because IMO it’s too Bengasi-like and an attempt to falsely discredit a credible FBI investigation for purely political purposes. But if they do bring in interesting witnesses, say Robert Mueller, Jim Comey or Andy McCabe, I will be sure to include such events in future posts.
House Homeland Security Committee Briefing on the President’s Stunt —
Background — None.
Recent Developments — The Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee calls for an immediate Briefing regarding the Federal governments attack on PEACEFUL Protesters in D.C. According to this Article from The Hill:
House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) is requesting an immediate briefing on the Secret Service’s involvement in clearing protesters from Lafayette Square.
In a Tuesday letter to Secret Service Director James Murray, Thompson said he wants a briefing by June 5 “to understand the role of the United States Secret Service in planning, coordinating, and executing” actions such as the ones taken Monday night outside the White House. v
“I write to you stunned, disturbed, and furious at the sight of federal authorities tear-gassing peaceful protesters in Lafayette Park, outside the White House, last night, in order to clear the way for the President to walk over and hold a Bible in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church,” Thompson said.
“It is shameful that the President used the power of the federal government to attack Americans exercising their Constitutional right to protest just so he could stage a photo opportunity,” he continued.
Not sure what kind of response he will get from the Secret Service since it is being widely reported that Barr gave the order to attack the PEACEFUL protesters to provide a path for the Orange Turd to walk to the church and perform his Bible Stunt. But let me just point out the seriousness of this crime against the American people perpetrated by Barr or Trump or both. As Joe Biden said in his eloquent speech yesterday, the First Amendment to the Constitution says:
“...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Can there be any doubt that that is what the peaceful protesters were doing just outside the White House? Can there be any doubt that the person or persons who gave the order to attack these PEACEFUL protesters are responsible for taking away that Constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT to petition the Government for a redress of grievances? Can there be any doubt that in taking away this RIGHT, the person or persons giving the order blatantly and egregiously violated the Constitution and in doing so committed an Impeachable Offense?
No there are no doubts about any of it. The only doubt is whether they will be allowed to get away with it.
New Developments — On Thursday (June 4), Barr came out to defend his UNCONSTITUTIONAL decision to order the removal of PEACEFUL Protesters. According to NPR:
U.S. Attorney General William Barr on Thursday defended the decision to order that protesters be driven back from a park near the White House this week and said extremist groups were involved in sometimes violent demonstrations in the aftermath of George Floyd's death.
"We have evidence that antifa and other similar extremist groups as well as actors of a variety of different political persuasions have been involved in instigating and participating in the violent activity," Barr said. "And we are also seeing foreign actors playing all sides to exacerbate the violence."
Barr said the government is dealing with a "witches brew of different organizations" fomenting violence.
Let’s get one thing straight. The FBI has not connected “antifa” (I should note that there is much in dispute as to what “antifa” actually is and whether it is an organization at all) to any of the violent protests and they certainly weren’t involved in violent acts associated with the Monday D.C. protests. Furthermore, Barr failed to mention evidence that strongly suggests far right groups have been part of his been a part of his "witches brew of different organizations" fomenting violence.
House Judiciary Committee Barr Subpoena for Mueller Grand Jury Materials —
Background — Pre-Nov. 22 CLICK HERE. Nov. 22 to Jan. 30 CLICK HERE. Post Jan 30 CLICK HERE. Also, see my May 11 , 19 & 20 TICs.
Recent Developments — The DoJ has filed it’s request to SCOTUS to block Congress from obtaining the Mueller Grand Jury Documents. According to this story from The Hill:
The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Monday asked the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court decision granting House Democrats access to redacted grand jury materials from former special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe.
The Monday filing serves as the Trump administration’s formal appeal of a March order to hand over secret transcripts and exhibits that Democratic leaders of the House Judiciary Committee initially sought as part of the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
The justices previously granted the administration’s request to halt the disclosure order, issued by a divided three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, from taking effect to allow time for an appeal.
In its filing, DOJ lawyers urged the justices to take up the case and to prevent an unwarranted breach of grand jury secrecy.
"In light of the national prominence of this grand-jury investigation, the separation-of-powers concerns raised by the decision below, and the potential damage that decision could inflict on 'the proper functioning of our grand jury system,' this Court’s review is warranted," they wrote.
Next step will probably be the filing of a response by the House Judiciary Committee.
New Developments — None.
House Judiciary Committee McGahn Subpoena —
Background — Pre-Nov. 22 CLICK HERE. Nov. 22 to Jan. 30 CLICK HERE. Post Jan 30 CLICK HERE. Also, see my May 5 TIC for details on the April 28 DC Circuit Court (virtual) Hearing in this case.
Recent Developments — None.
New Developments — None, awaiting Court Ruling.
House Judiciary & Intelligence Committee News —
NOTE #1: This used to be the “House Intelligence Committee’s Whistleblower Investigation”. Then it was titled the “House Intelligence, & Judiciary Committees’ Impeachment Investigation”. Then it was titled the “House & Senate Impeachment Proceedings.” But since Trump’s first impeachment is over, I have changed the heading again.
Background — Pre-Nov. 22 CLICK HERE. Nov. 22 to Jan. 30 CLICK HERE. Post Jan 30 CLICK HERE. Also, see my May 11 TIC.
Recent Developments — Judiciary Committee is planning a DoJ Whistleblowers Hearing. According to POLITICO:
The House Judiciary Committee has lined up whistleblowers to testify about alleged political interference inside the Justice Department, committee aides told POLITICO on Tuesday, as Attorney General William Barr continues to rebuff efforts by the panel to reschedule testimony he committed to in March.The whistleblower hearing, which has yet to be formally scheduled, is part of a series of steps the panel intends to take in the coming weeks to push back against Barr, who they say has rejected renewed efforts to testify before the Democrat-led panel. The panel is also proposing to slash Barr's personal budget by $50 million, a response to the mounting frustration with the attorney general's resistance to scheduling his first appearance before the panel that oversees his Justice Department.
Smart move to get the Whistelblowers’ testimony on record before bringing in Barr. It could put Barr in a perjury trap IF he eventually testifies, and that’s a BIG IF.
New Developments — House Judiciary panel to hold police brutality hearing next week. According to POLITICO:
The House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on police brutality on June 10 as Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic leaders push to have a police reform package on the floor by the end of the month.
House Democrats — led by the Congressional Black Caucus — are considering a number of measures to respond to the national outpouring of grief and anger following the death of George Floyd, a 46-year-old unarmed black man who died last week after a Minnesota police officer pinned his knee on Floyd’s neck for more than eight minutes. House Democrats are working with Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Kamala Harris of California on the effort, according to Democratic aides.
Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) is planning on a markup of the package by mid-June. The full House will consider the legislation on the floor when it returns to Washington in three weeks.
“The House Judiciary Committee is working very closely with the Congressional Black Caucus to determine the best path forward to address police brutality and racial inequality,” Nadler said in the statement announcing the hearing. “We are reviewing legislative proposals and will consider legislation in the coming weeks.”
The Democratic package — which lawmakers are still drafting — may include a number of measures: developing a federal “use-of-force” standard for police officers; a ban on chokeholds or other aggressive restraint techniques; a national database of police officers fired for misconduct or other offenses; and ending the “qualified immunity doctrine” that protects police officers from lawsuits, among others.
This will be something to watch in the coming days and weeks, and strongly deserves our attention. However, I hope it doesn’t provide too much of a distraction from the vital HEREOS Bill and allow Mitch to quietly let it die. Although I have confidence by past performance that House Democrats can walk and chew gum at the same time.
House Intelligence Committee Flynn Subpoena —
Background — Pre-Nov. 22 CLICK HERE. Nov. 22 to Jan. 30 CLICK HERE. Post Jan 30 CLICK HERE. Also, see my May 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 19, 20, 27 & June 3 TICs.
Recent Developments — As reported here yesterday in Kerry Eleveld's Post, The Justice Department filed it’s formal appeal urging a federal appeals court to force the federal Judge Emmett Sullivan to dismiss the case against Flynn. According to POLITICO:
District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan had declined to immediately toss the case against Flynn, despite the Justice Department's move to drop a charge that the Trump ally lied to the FBI about his 2016 contacts with Russia's ambassador to the United States. Flynn pleaded guilty to the offense in 2017 but reversed course and moved to withdraw his plea in recent months.
Sullivan instead sought outside input about whether he should abandon the case — and potentially charge Flynn with contempt of court for perjury during his guilty plea proceedings. On Monday, DOJ said Sullivan was wrong to take that step.
“Instead of inviting further proceedings, the court should have granted the government’s motion to dismiss,” top DOJ officials, including at least three career prosecutors, wrote in a 45-page filing to a three-judge appeals court panel.
In addition, the House Judiciary Committee announced it will imminently file a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals opposing the call by the Justice Department to force the dismissal of the charges against former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who had previously pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI but had recently sought to withdraw that plea.
This appeal will be heard by a 3 Judge Panel made up of 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat. So I’m not optimistic.
New Developments — Judge Emmett Sullivan has filed a Brief with the 3-Judge Appeals Court Panel who will Hear the DoJ case on overruling Sullivan’s decision to not immediately grant DoJ’s petition for dismissal of the charges against Flynn. According to this CBS News Report:
Judge Emmet Sullivan has filed a brief with the U.S. District of Columbia Appeals Court defending his decision not to immediately approve the Justice Department's request to dismiss its criminal case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn. In the brief, Sullivan's lawyer, Beth Wilkinson, pointed out the unusual aspects of the case and argued for allowing Sullivan to review the request before ruling on it.
Wilkinson argued the appeals court should not "short-circuit" Sullivan's ability to review the case.
"The question before this Court is whether it should short-circuit this process, forbid even a limited inquiry into the government's motion, and order that motion granted," she wrote. "The answer is no."
You can read the Full Brief
here.
Oral arguments in the Justice Department’s motion to compel the federal judge to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn have been set for June 12 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for Washington, D.C. Stay Tuned!
House Committees Subpoenas/Requests for Trump Banking/Financial Records & Taxes:
Background — Pre-Nov. 22 CLICK HERE. Nov. 22 to Jan. 30 CLICK HERE. Post Jan 30 CLICK HERE. Also, see my May 11 , 12 , 13 & 14 TICs.
NOTE: In previous TICs, there were 3 separate topic threads (1. Deutsche/Capital One Bank Subpoenas, 2. Mazars’ Subpoena, and 3. Trump Taxes) covering 5 different court cases. Since they are all dealing with the same general topic (Trump’s hidden financial history) and were starting to get intertwined in my brain, I have rolled them all under the single header above to hopefully make things less confusing.
Also, to further help keep things organized, below are the five (5) ongoing court cases dealing with Trump’s Banking/Financial Records and tax returns.
1. Trump vs. Deutsche Bank and Capital One — Case brought by Trump against the the two banks in an effort to block a subpoena from the House Financial Services and Intelligence Committees for the Trump Organization’s banking records, including tax returns.
2. Trump vs. Mazars (Congressional Case) — Congressional Mazar’s case brought by Trump against Mazars (the Trump Organization’s former Accounting Firm) in an effort to block a subpoena from the House Oversight and Reform Committee for the Trump Organization’s financial records, including tax returns.
3. Trump vs. Mazars (Criminal Case) — Case brought by Trump against against Mazars (the Trump Organization’s former Accounting Firm) in an effort to block a subpoena from the Manhattan DA for Trump’s tax returns. The DA has subpoenaed these takes returns in conjunction with his criminal investigation of Trump’s hush money pay off to Stormy Daniels.
4. Congress vs. the IRS & Treasury Department (Trump’s Federal Tax Returns) — This case is a lawsuit brought by the House Ways & Means Committee against the IRS and Treasury Department for their failure to turn over Trump’s tax returns upon the Committee’s request as required BY LAW.
5. Trump vs. NYS Tax Department (Trump’s State Tax Returns) — This case is a lawsuit brought by Trump to block NYS from turning over his State tax returns to Congress.
I will use these case #s below to help keep things organized.
Recent Developments — None.
New Developments — None, awaiting SCOTUS rulings.
THAT’S IT FOR TODAY! Stay Healthy All!