WASHINGTON – Senators Chuck Grassley
(R-Iowa), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Thom Tillis
(R-N.C.) today are seeking the appointment of a special counsel to work with the
Inspector General in reviewing how the Justice Department and FBI handled
specific matters related to the Trump-Russia investigation up to the
appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
“We have the utmost confidence
in the Inspector General’s integrity, fairness, and impartiality, and trust
that he will complete these reviews in a thorough, unbiased, and timely
fashion,” the
senators wrote in a letter to Justice Department leaders. “However, by
statute, the Inspector General does not have the tools that a prosecutor would
to gather all the facts, such as the ability to obtain testimony from essential
witnesses who are not current DOJ employees. Thus, we believe that a
special counsel is needed to work with the Inspector General to independently
gather the facts and make prosecutorial decisions, if any are merited.”
On February 28, 2018, Grassley,
chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Graham, chairman of the
Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, wrote to the Justice
Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) requesting a broad review of
more than 30 classified and unclassified questions related to the Trump-Russia
probe. But because the Inspector General lacks access to grand jury process and
other prosecutorial tools, a special counsel with such authority may be
necessary to compel the production of testimony and information that would
otherwise be unobtainable.
In their letter to the Attorney
General and Deputy Attorney General,
Grassley, Graham, Cornyn and Tillis outline the case for appointment of a
special counsel to support an independent OIG investigation, and note that the
appointment should occur under the specific Justice Department regulations that
govern special counsels and limit the scope of their authority. The senators
further request that if the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General
determines a special counsel is not appropriate or necessary, then the
Department designate a U.S. Attorney’s office or other prosecutor with no real
or apparent conflict to work with the Inspector General.
March 15, 2018
VIA
ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
The
Honorable Jeff Sessions
Attorney
General
U.S.
Department of Justice
950
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington,
D.C. 20530
The
Honorable Rod J. Rosenstein
Deputy
Attorney General
U.S.
Department of Justice
950
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington,
D.C. 20530
Dear
Attorney General Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein:
As you know, the Department of Justice
Inspector General currently is reviewing the Department’s and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation’s handling of the Clinton email investigation.
[1] Recently, the Attorney General
requested that he also review questions about the Department’s and the FBI’s
actions in seeking a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant
against former Trump Campaign advisor Carter Page.
[2]
On February 28, based on reviews of related documents and facts gathered thus
far in the Committee’s oversight work, Chairman Grassley and Chairman Graham
also requested that the Inspector General broadly review more than 30
classified and unclassified questions related to the FBI and the Department’s
handling of the so-called Trump/Russia investigation and related matters prior
to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
[3]
For reference, we have attached the unclassified portion of that
referral.
The January 4, 2018 referral of
Christopher Steele requested that the Justice Department reconcile the
statements he made in British libel litigation against him with contrary
statements he reportedly made to the FBI, as described in the FISA
application. The referral took no position as to which were true, but
asked the Justice Department whether Mr. Steele misrepresented the facts to the
FBI and whether the FBI inaccurately reported the facts to the court.
Based on the release of the memorandum drafted by the minority staff of the
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the FBI has now provided a
further un-redacted version of that referral memorandum, also attached here.
[4] The new version provides the
public for the first time the actual quote from the FISA application that we
flagged for the Justice Department as inconsistent with claims made in the
British libel litigation filings.
The attached request to the Inspector
General asked that he investigate issues surrounding the application and
renewals of the FISA warrant. It also requested that he review potential
improprieties in the FBI’s relationship with Christopher Steele, the potential
conflicts of interest posed by the involvement of high-ranking DOJ official Bruce
Ohr in serving as the cut-out between the FBI and Mr. Steele after the FBI
terminated its formal relationship with him, apparent unauthorized disclosures
of classified information to the press, the FBI and DOJ’s handling of the
investigation of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, and other matters.
We have the utmost confidence in the
Inspector General’s integrity, fairness, and impartiality, and trust that he
will complete these reviews in a thorough, unbiased, and timely fashion.
However, by statute, the Inspector General does not have the tools that a
prosecutor would to gather all the facts, such as the ability to obtain
testimony from essential witnesses who are not current DOJ employees.
Thus, we believe that a special counsel is needed to work with the Inspector General
to independently gather the facts and make prosecutorial decisions, if any are
merited. The Justice Department cannot credibly investigate itself
without these enhanced measures of independence to ensure that the public can
have confidence in the outcome.
To ensure that the appointment of a
special counsel rests on a clear, well-defined predicate and scope, and to give
the American people the fullest possible confidence in his or her independence
and authority, we believe that the appointment should specifically cite, rely
on, and follow the Department’s regulations governing such an appointment,
including specifically 28 C.F.R. §§ 600.1-600.4.
[5]
If you are unwilling to take this step,
please send us a detailed reply explaining why not. We look forward to your
response.
Sincerely,
Charles
E.
Grassley Lindsey O.
Graham
Chairman
Chairman
Committee
on the
Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism
John
Cornyn Thom Tillis
U.S.
Senator
U.S. Senator
cc:
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary
The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism
-30-
[1] Press
Release, Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
DOJ OIG
Announces Initiation of Review (Jan. 12, 2017).
[2] Kelly
Cohen, Jeff Sessions responds to Nunes memo
release: 'No department is perfect',
Washington
Examiner (Feb. 2, 2018); Josh Gerstein, Sessions: Justice Department
watchdog investigating GOP Russia memo claims,
Politico
(Feb. 27, 2018).
[3] Letter
from Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary and
Lindsey O. Graham, Chairman, Subcomm. on Crime and Terrorism, U.S. Sen. Comm.
on the Judiciary to Michael Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S. Dep’t of Justice
(Feb. 28, 2018) (Unclassified Letter attached as Exhibit 1).
[4]
Memorandum from Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary
and Lindsey O. Graham, Chairman, Subcomm. on Crime and Terrorism, U.S. Sen.
Comm. on the Judiciary to Rod J. Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General, U.S.
Dep’t of Justice and Christopher A. Wray, Director, Federal Bureau of
Investigation (Jan. 4, 2018) (Exhibit 2).
[5] See 28
C.F.R. § 600
et seq.; If you determine that a special counsel appointment
would not be necessary or appropriate under the Department’s regulations, we
urge you to designate a disinterested U.S. Attorney or other Justice Department
prosecutor with no actual or apparent conflicts to work cooperatively with the
Inspector General in his review and ensure that he has access to grand jury
process and other prosecutorial tools necessary to guarantee a thorough,
complete, and independent review in which the public can have total confidence.