Email #172: “travesty of justice”?

When President Kennedy appointed his brother Attorney General in 1961, the New York Times called it “irresponsible,” Newsweek called it a “travesty of justice,” and The Nation called it “the greatest example of nepotism this land has ever seen.” Six years later Congress passed the Federal Anti-Nepotism Statue—though its Democratic sponsor was more worried about the 50 wives on Congressmen’s payrolls.

The law is clear:

“A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official.”

The statute states explicitly that “public official” includes “the President” and “relative” includes “son-in-law.” I am confused then why as chair of the House Judiciary Committee you did not respond to the President’s appointment of Jared Kushner as senior advisor on January 9.

President Bush’s former top ethics lawyer, Richard Painter, said “the statute prohibits the appointment.” This seems self-evident, but Painter also said he would “err on the side of caution,” suggesting there’s some ambiguity. I presume that’s because that statue includes the sentence:

“An individual appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in violation of this section is not entitled to pay.”

I understand that Kushner is not being paid, but given his $740 million net worth, not taking a paycheck is hardly a punishment.  More importantly, President Trump is still violating the law by appointing him. The President said:

“Jared has been a tremendous asset and trusted adviser throughout the campaign and transition and I am proud to have him in a key leadership role in my administration… He will be an invaluable member of my team…”

A “member” of the White House “team,” especially a “key leadership role,” is “a civilian position in the agency in which” President Trump “is serving” and “exercises jurisdiction.” Why are you ignoring this violation of federal law? Your inaction violates what you wrote last October:

“We are a nation of laws. That principle was important to our Founders, and it is rightfully at the very core of our government. In fact, as I travel the Sixth Congressional District, folks continually tell me about the importance of following the rule of law as the best way to govern our country. Too often they have seen laws ignored with little or no consequences for those who break them, and want this to change.”

Kushner may have also violated laws far more consequential than anti-nepotism. Multiple news sources reported yesterday that Kushner attempted to establish a secret communication line with the Kremlin to circumnavigate the U.S. government. Kushner and Michael Flynn met with Russian Ambassador Kyslak in Trump Tower in early December and asked for use of the Russian embassy’s communication equipment. Kyslak was apparently startled but relayed the request to the Kremlin, where it was declined.

While the private meeting, which the White House said in March was a brief courtesy meeting, and the request would not be crimes, they significantly widen the appearance of collusion. It also makes Secretary Clinton’s use of an insufficiently secure private email system seem benign in contrast since Kushner and Flynn were attempting to use a system entirely outside U.S. security.

You felt that Secretary Clinton’s negligence deserved criminal prosecution and punishment. What is your opinion of Kushner’s request?

Since you are ignoring the administration’s violation of the federal anti-nepotism law, do you no longer think “following the rule of law” is “the best way to govern our country”?

How many other laws do you feel the administration should be allowed to violate with “no consequences”?

If we are a “nation of laws,” why do you apply that “principle” at “the very core of our government” so inconsistently?

If you can’t exercise oversight of the executive branch regarding something as relatively low stakes as nepotism, how can the nation trust you with the Russian crisis?

Email #160: “extraordinary circumstances”

Given the explicit conflict of interest of the FBI investigating any sitting President, a special counsel should already have been appointed to investigate possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia during the election. While conflict of interest alone is sufficient cause, Director Comey’s firing also meets the law’s standard of “extraordinary circumstances” for the appointment a special counsel.

Multiple sources report that the President has attempted to use his authority to improperly influence the FBI Director before firing him. James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, said that Comey “mentioned that he had been invited to the White House to have dinner with the president and he was uneasy with that” because Comey didn’t want to create “the appearance of compromising the integrity of the FBI.”

A former FBI official told NBC News that “The White House called [Comey] out of the blue. Comey didn’t want to do it. He didn’t even want the rank and file at the FBI to know about it,” but Comey agreed to the dinner because the President is “still the commander-in-chief. He’s your boss. How do you say no?” During the dinner, the President raised the topic of the Russian investigation, but Comey “tried to stay away from it. He would say, ‘Look sir, I really can’t get into it, and you don’t want me to.'”

The New York Times reported a separate account:

“The president then turned the conversation to whether Mr. Comey would pledge his loyalty to him. Mr. Comey declined to make that pledge. Instead, Mr. Comey has recounted to others, he told Mr. Trump that he would always be honest with him, but that he was not “reliable” in the conventional political sense… Mr. Trump again said to Mr. Comey that he needed his loyalty. Mr. Comey again replied that he would give him “honesty” and did not pledge his loyalty… But Mr. Trump pressed him on whether it would be “honest loyalty.” “You will have that,” Mr. Comey told his associates he responded.”

More extraordinary, the President stated himself that he fired Director Comey because of the Russian investigation: “when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.’”

The President directly contradicted earlier statements from his own White House personnel. Press Secretary Spicer said the decision to fire Comey originated from the Justice Department, specifically Deputy Attorney General Rowenstein: “It was all him. No one from the White House. That was a DOJ decision.” Spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders added the next day: “When you receive a report that is so clear and a recommendation by someone like the deputy attorney general, you have no choice but to act.” And yet there are multiple reports that Rowenstein wrote the memo at the President’s request.

It is difficult to characterize the White House statements as a “cover up,” since the President does not seem to be aware that firing an FBI director for investigating him is an abuse of power. Given these “extraordinary circumstances,” the need for a special counsel is overwhelming. As chair of the House Judiciary Committee, you should be leading that call.

And yet you have said nothing. When will you place duty to your country ahead of duty to your political party and hold the Trump administration accountable?

Email #147: “credible allegations”?

Thank you for your form letter regarding the range of investigations into the Trump administration.

You say that your House Judiciary Committee will “investigate any credible allegations of criminal activity by the Executive Branch,” and you list three specific areas of oversight that you say you will conduct as chair:

1) “misconduct of executive branch officials,”

2) “allegations of leaks of classified information,” and

3) “improper interference with our democratic institutions or efforts to improperly or illegally interfere with our election.”

You also state that you oppose “ineffectual,” “disruptive” or “politically-charged” inquiries that “only satisfy the interests of narrow constituencies” or “jeopardize the integrity of the very investigations called for by the resolutions.”

As an apparent result, you prevented your committee from approving three resolutions of inquiry that would have asked the Attorney General for information relating to:

1) “criminal or counterintelligence investigations targeting President Trump, former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, and other White House personnel,”

2) “any Trump investments involving foreign agents or governments, records of communication between Trump campaign or transition employees with the Russian government,” and

3) “and any record relating to the president’s Twitter postings on March 4, 2017” (which accuse President Obama of illegally wiretapping Trump Tower during the election campaign).

Removing your statements of opinion regarding these two lists, it is impossible to determine why you consider only the first three to be “credible.”

Criminal and counterintelligence investigation into the President, his former National Security Advisor, and other White House employees falls clearly under your first “credible” category: “misconduct of executive branch officials.” The media has reported a range of disturbing allegations regarding Michael Flynn, including his undisclosed employment by Russian agencies. Are you suggesting that all of these reports are false or otherwise not “credible”?

Similarly, the U.S. intelligence community unanimously concluded that Russia attempted to influence the Presidential election by harming Hillary Clinton’s campaign and therefore promoting Donald Trump’s. Moreover, at least three individuals with major roles in the Trump campaign are under investigation for their ties to Russia. And yet according to your letter, requests for information regarding communications between members of the Trump campaign and Russian are not “credible” but are instead “ineffectual,” “disruptive” and “politically-charged.”

Ironically, one item on your two lists does appear motivated to “only satisfy the interests of narrow constituencies.” That’s your own request into the leaks that revealed Michael Flynn’s previously undisclosed connection to Russia and led to his resignation. Rather than investigating Flynn himself, you only wish to investigate the White House whistle-blower who outed him.  What constituents would this satisfy?

You say “it is important to maintain effective and strong oversight of the other branches of government” and that you “take Congress’s role to uphold our constitutional framework of three co-equal branches of government very seriously.” You also assure me “that whichever political party occupies the White House, I will continue to uphold our Constitution and its system of three coequal branches that are accountable to the American people.”

However, your other statements—including those within the very letter attempting to assure me—provide evidence of exactly the opposite. You appear to be motivated solely by the party occupying the White House, ignoring and even blocking attempts at oversight of the Trump administration for political reasons.

Misconduct is misconduct. All investigations are “disruptive” to those being investigated, and any investigation of a sitting president is necessarily “politically-charged.” These are not excuses to ignore and block them–they are reasons for you to steer these needed investigations through a fair, vigorous, and transparent process. Please place your Constitutional responsibilities ahead of your political affiliation and hold the executive branch accountable.

Bob Goodlatte replies about President Trump

Dear Mr. Gavaler:

Thank you for contacting me about proposed congressional resolutions of inquiry asking the Department of Justice to provide the House of Representatives all records and communication as it relates to the financial practices of President Trump.  Additionally, the resolutions of inquiry seek any information relating to criminal or counterintelligence investigations targeting President Trump and his associates.

I take Congress’s role to uphold our constitutional framework of three co-equal branches of government very seriously. Congress and the American public should not and cannot allow one branch to assume too much authority without a challenge from the other branches of government. That is why the House Judiciary Committee’s oversight plan for the 115th Congress will “conduct oversight into allegations of misconduct of executive branch officials and continue to conduct oversight into allegations of leaks of classified information, as well as allegations of improper interference with our democratic institutions or efforts to improperly or illegally interfere with our election.”

While we agree it is important to maintain effective and strong oversight of the other branches of government, I do, however, oppose recent resolutions introduced by my Democratic colleagues that lack the legal force or effect to retrieve information from the Department of Justice, and only satisfy the interests of narrow constituencies. Representative Jerry Nadler of New York, one of the resolutions’ sponsors, explicitly expressed that he wanted to force Congress to have a vote on Trump. I believe Congress’s oversight efforts can do better than employing ineffectual and disruptive resolutions.

On February 28, and March 29, 2017, the House Judiciary Committee reported unfavorably H.Res. 111, H.Res. 184, and H.Res. 203.  These three resolutions of inquiry would have requested that the Attorney General provide the House of Representatives all information the Department of Justice has in its possession relating to criminal or counterintelligence investigations targeting President Trump, former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, and other White House personnel; any Trump investments involving foreign agents or governments, records of communication between Trump campaign or transition employees with the Russian government; and any record relating to the president’s Twitter postings on March 4, 2017.

Congress should, and will, investigate any credible allegations of criminal activity by the Executive Branch, but it should not do so through politically-charged resolutions of inquiry that could jeopardize the integrity of the very investigations called for by the resolutions.

You have my assurance that whichever political party occupies the White House, I will continue to uphold our Constitution and its system of three coequal branches that are accountable to the American people.

I appreciate you taking the time to contact me. I believe it is important to keep an open line of communication so I can best serve the interests of Virginia’s 6th District. I hope you will continue to be in touch as Congress debates issues of importance to the United States.

Sincerely,

Bob Goodlatte
Member of Congress

Email #112, Subject: “not aware”?

The public now knows that President Trump’s campaign chair Paul Manafort was employed by a Russian oligarch close to the Kremlin to promote Russian interests in the White House. Press Secretary Spicer reported that “the president was not aware.”

How could the President have failed to properly vet a major member of his own election team? Spicer dismissed the concern, arguing that the President was also not aware of where Manafort “went to school, what grades he got, [and] who he played with in the sandbox.”

The White House is likening the former campaign chair’s paid but undisclosed agenda to influence U.S. foreign policy to a childhood playdate.

This is after the President’s National Security Advisor was forced to step down due to his own undisclosed contact with Russia during the campaign. And this is after the President’s Attorney General was forced to recuse himself from the investigation due to his own contact with Russia during the same period and his misleading statement on the subject before the Senate during his confirmation hearings.

As chair of the House Judiciary Committee, oversight of the executive branch is one of your primary responsibilities, and yet you have had little to say on this matter, and what you have said has been misleading. The New Virginian reported:

“But Goodlatte has been responsive to some of the very issues constituents have criticized him for, his staff says. As chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Goodlatte wrote a letter with other members of the committee on March 8 to Comey regarding Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.”

White it’s true that you wrote to Director Comey, you made two requests: one on the Russian investigation and another on the President’s claim that he was wiretapped by President Obama during the election. The first is already being investigated by the Justice Department and will lead to impeachment if confirmed. The second has been universally rejected, with the Wall Street Journal likening the President to “a drunk clinging to an empty gin bottle.”

And yet by pairing the two in your letter you have implied that they are of equal significance. The President’s claim is an international embarrassment. Your tacit endorsement deepens that embarrassment. The world looks to the U.S. to define the highest standards of democratic governance, and you are failing to meet the responsibilities of your office.