[ad_1]
House Republicans has taken steps to hold a vote this week on a move urging Justice Department officials to provide more documents on the investigative actions during the 2016 presidential election, or risk the disregard of Congress or dismissal.
Republican leaders gave their blessing Tuesday night to an effort to advance the resolution, which was a slightly different version of a measure approved earlier Tuesday along party lines by the House Judiciary Committee. The goal is to hold a vote Thursday, said one of the co-sponsors, the GOP representative, Jordan's Jim Jordan, in an interview Tuesday night.
The adoption of the resolution would increase the pressure on Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to hand over materials, including some related to the origins of the investigation into the complicity of Donald Trump's presidential campaign with the government. Russian interference in the 2016 elections. The measure would give Rosenstein and other officials until July 6 to comply.
The resolution does not provide for any penalty if the documents are not delivered. But Jordan said Tuesday that "all options are on the table" when someone "tells the House of Representatives to go on a hike", including an action for contempt of Congress or even an impeachment.
"We want the majority of the House to support it, we just think it would be stronger," he said of the pressure to move the measure to the entire House.
Such a move could push Congress even deeper into an ongoing investigation – an unexplored territory for lawmakers, and a mark of deep party divisions over Rosenstein and his appointment of special advocate Robert Mueller. The next step would be to vote for the entire House, although it is unclear how Republican leaders plan to manage this measure.
& # 39; Sick and tired & # 39;
"Here is the result: we are tired of the Department of Justice who gave us the solution," said Jordan, who sponsored the measure with Rep. Mark Meadows, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus.
One of the changes made in consultation with President Paul Ryan's office on Tuesday night was to withdraw requests for an unexpurgated copy of an August 2017 memo outlining the jurisdiction and scope. from Mueller's investigation of Russia. Republicans have asked for the added note of details to an earlier version, and they want to know why these changes were made.
But the measure still includes demands contained in two subpoenas issued by the intelligence and oversight commissions and the government and justice reform for the documents. These relate to alleged abuses of surveillance and decisions made by the Department of Justice in its investigations into the handling of emails by Hillary Clinton and Russian electoral interference.
Earlier in the day, Jerrold Nadler, the New York Democrat, called the resolution "an act of bad faith by members of the majority" orchestrated by the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes. Nadler said the real goal is to sabotage or undermine Mueller's investigation into the question of whether there was "a possible criminal plot with the government of Russia to rig an election".
Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland said the Republican resolution appears to be aimed at provoking "a constitutional crisis" by demanding information that "we all know that the Justice Department can not return".
The measure is necessary for the committee to "conduct meaningful oversight" of the Department of Justice and the FBI, including seeking out potential surveillance or "other" abuses, said Judicial Chair Robert Goodlatte of Virginia. He said his committee will insist more on the material at a public hearing scheduled on Thursday with Rosenstein and Christopher Wray, director of the FBI.
The Senate Judiciary Speaker, Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, said Tuesday that he was not yet convinced that the Justice Department's actions had been concealed at the beginning of the Russian investigation, but he began to be wary.
"I should have more evidence to draw this conclusion," he said. "But when you have some things that we should have access to common sense – information, documents, etc. – that makes you somewhat suspicious that they are trying to conceal." But do I have any evidence of camouflage? . "
(An earlier version of this story misspelled the name of the Deputy Attorney General in the second paragraph.)
Source link
