TPM News

HONOLULU (AP) — A federal judge in Hawaii questioned a government attorney Wednesday who urged him to narrow his order blocking President Donald Trump's travel ban after arguing that a freeze on the nation's refugee program had no effect on the state.

Read More →

One thing was made crystal clear in a Wednesday press briefing on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election: this investigation is a very big and very serious deal.

In an hour-long appearance, committee Chair Richard Burr (R-NC) and Vice-Chair Mark Warner (D-VA) framed their probe as one of most ambitious investigative efforts ever taken on by a congressional committee. Burr, a 22-year veteran of Capitol Hill, framed the investigation as “one of the biggest” he’s seen in his tenure in Washington, D.C.

Warner concurred, saying, “When we started this, we saw the scope, what was involved, I said it was the most important thing I have ever taken on in my public life. I believe that more firmly now.”

Their solemn assurances to investigate the full scope of Russia’s involvement, to look into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russian officials, and to produce a truly bipartisan report on their findings offered a stark contrast from the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation, led by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA). The House’s probe came to a standstill this week over Nunes’ overly close relationship with the President, and he and ranking member Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) haven’t appeared together publicly in days.

Here are the key takeaways about the Senate committee’s investigation from Wednesday’s press conference:

Whether Trump was involved is the probe’s core question

Asked if there was evidence of “direct links” suggesting the President played any role in Russia’s interference, Burr said that was the ultimate question the committee would seek to answer.

“We know that our challenge is to answer that question for the American people in our conclusions to this investigation,” said Burr, who noted that he voted for Trump in November.

He and Warner also said it was too early to definitively reject coordination between Trump’s campaign team and Russian officials, saying they would “let this process go through before we form any opinions.”

The White House hasn’t interfered in or coordinated with the probe

Warner said he has seen “no evidence” to suggest that the White House is “interfering in the integrity of this investigation,” pointing to Trump son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner’s offer to be interviewed by the committee as a “good sign.”

“If we see any attempt to stifle us with information or cut off the intelligence professionals giving us the access we need, you’ll hear from us,” he added.

In response to a reporter’s question, Burr also said that he has not coordinated with the White House to define his investigation’s scope.

Russia’s election meddling goes beyond the U.S.

The senators stated Wednesday that Russia is actively working to undermine or interfere with election campaigns underway in several countries outside the United States, including Germany, Montenegro, the Netherlands and France.

“We feel part of our responsibility is to educate the rest of the world about what’s going on because it’s now into character assassination of candidates,” Warner said.

He pointed to France’s upcoming presidential election, in which Marine LePen, a far-right politician and ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, is a top contender.

“I think it’s safe by everybody’s judgment that the Russians are actively involved in the French elections,” he said.

This will be different from the House investigation

Burr and Warner went out of their way to put distance between their probe and that of the House Intelligence Committee.

“This investigation’s scope will go wherever the intelligence leads it,” Burr said in his opening remarks. “And contrary to maybe popular belief, we’re partners to see that this is completed and that we’ve got a product at the end of the day that we can have bipartisanship in supporting.”

The senators emphasized information sharing between all members of the committee and reiterated their agreement to issue subpoenas to desired witnesses if need be.

In perhaps the most pointed dig at the House’s investigation, Burr said he would always share sources with his Democratic counterpart.

“He usually knows my sources before I do,” the chairman said.

Nunes has vowed to “never” share his confidential sources, even with the rest of his committee.

The probe is looking at the role of “fake news”

Warner said one of the most alarming findings so far in his estimation is the use of paid Internet trolls who promote false news stories and target them to specific geographic areas.

Saying that those trolls could have targeted states where the margin of victory was razor-thin, like Wisconsin and Michigan, with negative stories about Hillary Clinton in the run-up to the election, Warner vowed the committee has “got to find this out.”

He also noted that searches for terms like “Google election hacking” in the days leading up to and following the election would result in stories from Russian propaganda sites.

The probe will not look at changes to the GOP platform

“That’s not in the scope of the investigation,” Burr said when asked if he would look at changes made to the 2016 Republican Party platform. Language in one GOP delegate’s proposal to have the U.S. provide “lethal defensive weapons” to Ukraine to push back against Russian military action was softened at the Republican National Convention to instead offer “appropriate assistance.”

Committee has more access to classified information than it had in previous probes

The senators said the classified information they have been able to access far exceeded what was available to them during their investigation of the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.

Seven committee staffers assigned to sift through thousands of intelligence documents have access to information typically only available to the most senior members of Congress, known as the Gang of Eight, the senators said.

“That is unprecedented in the history of the committee,” Burr said, adding that this makes it easier for the committee to determine who needs to be interviewed.

The committee will move slowly and deliberately

Burr said the committee would not release names of people who would be interviewed, nor ask them to come before the committee until the “appropriate time.”

Warner noted that the committee would not schedule its interview with Kushner, the only person named as an interview subject so far, until “we know exactly the scope of what needs to be asked” of him.

Both lawmakers emphasized the wide-ranging scope of the investigation, which will also look at Russian capabilities and previous influence campaigns.

The committee’s first open hearing on Russian election meddling, scheduled for Thursday, will take that broad, historical approach. No big intelligence names are scheduled to testify, but cybersecurity experts will speak to Russia’s methods and motivations.

One of the core questions that the Senate Intelligence Committee is currently working to answer is whether President Donald Trump had any role in Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, the Republican chairman suggested Wednesday.

At a press briefing, a reporter asked Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) if he had seen any evidence of “direct links” that suggest the “President himself had anything to do with this.”

“We won’t take a snap shot in time and make any observations on it,” Burr replied. “We know that our challenge is to answer that question for the American people in our conclusions to this investigation.”

The Trump administration has denied that this is a question that needs answering, with the President calling allegations that he or his team have connections to Russian operatives “fake news.”

Burr and Vice Chairman Mark Warner (D-VA) declined an opportunity to “definitively rule out” coordination between Trump staffers and Russian officials, which the FBI, House and Senate are all looking into.

“We would be crazy to try to draw conclusions from where we are in the investigation,” Burr said. “I think Mark and I have committed to let this process go through before we form any opinions. And I would hope that that’s what you would like us to do.”

The two lawmakers said that the committee has seven staffers working on the investigation, and that those staffers are poring through thousands of documents containing raw intelligence.

Their chummy united front presented a stark contrast to the perception problems currently engulfing the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation.

A battle years in the making over the politicization of the Senate’s judicial confirmation process will come to a head next week with the final push to confirm federal appeals court Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

The stage is being set with floor speeches, press conferences, and a committee vote Monday to advance President Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The drama surrounding his floor vote, slated for next Friday, is not about whether Gorsuch will be confirmed, but if the opportunity for the minority party to filibuster Supreme Court nominees will be blown up in the process.

A press conference Wednesday hosted by Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans with former clerks of Gorsuch was ostensibly meant to highlight the judge’s resume, his decade on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, and his temperament. But just as prominent was Republicans’ pleas that Democrats don’t filibuster Gorsuch and put the onus on GOP senators to trigger, as it’s called, the “nuclear option.”

“I’m here to tell you he’s going to be on the Supreme Court because he’s earned the right to be there. The only question is ‘how,’ it’s not even ‘when,’” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said at the press conference, held in front of the Supreme Court, where an amateur chorus sang a pro-Gorsuch song and counter-demonstrators chanted, “Don’t change the rules, change the nominee.”

“To my Democratic colleagues, if he can’t get 60 votes, Neil Gorsuch, that tells me that you don’t care about qualifications any longer,” Graham said.

This moment is a longtime coming. Republicans will say it began with Robert Bork, the Reagan nominee that was defeated in an up-or-down Senate floor vote due to concerns of his far-right judicial record. (Six Republicans joined Democrats in voting against his confirmation).

Democrats point to the obstruction campaign that then-Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) waged against President Obama’s lower court nominees, that culminated in the Senate’s Democratic majority going nuclear on the filibuster for non-Supreme Court confirmations.

But the fight reached new heights with Republicans’ treatment last year of federal appeals court Judge Merrick Garland, the nominee President Obama selected to fill the seat left by the death of Justice Scalia, where Gorsuch now seeks to sit. Claiming a dubious standard that vacancies opened in a presidential election year should be filled by whomever wins the election, Republicans refused to grant Garland even a confirmation hearing. While there are certainly concerns from the left about Gorsuch’s jurisprudence, his willingness to buck the Trump administration and the dark money groups supporting his confirmation, the fact that an unprecedented blockade allowed his nomination in the first place is an inescapable element of the current fight.

“I hope that [the Democrats] will recognize, regardless of what was done to Merrick Garland, and I believe he should have been given fair consideration, that we’re past that now,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), one of only a few Senate Republicans to question the Garland blockade, told reporters last week.

It’s worth noting that when Clinton was expected to win the election, a few Republicans were suggesting they’d continue their blockade, and it was the Democrats, including then-Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who were floating the nuclear option.

As more Democratic senators commit to mounting a filibuster, the game is now about who will get blamed for further eroding the Senate norms that are supposed to retain the upper chamber’s more collegial and cooler-headed tenor.

After Wednesday’s press conference, Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-IA) warned that it was a “slippery slope” if Democrats filibuster Gorsuch that could lead to the end of the filibuster on legislation as well.

“Then you’ve made the Senate from a deliberative point of view, just like the House, and you want to protect some place in our political system where minority views are considered,” Grassley said.

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has declared his desire for a Democratic filibuster of Gorsuch. Now Republicans’ hopes rest on enough defections from Democrats representing red-states where Trump found deep support in the presidential election, and particularly those whose seats are up again in 2018.

The decision announced this week by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) – a centrist third-term senator facing re-election next year – to support a Gorsuch filibuster may have been the tell that Republicans’ pleas for Democrats not to filibuster are falling on deaf ears.