Oversight Dems Request Interviews Of Key Figures In Census Citizenship Push

on May 17, 2017 in Washington, DC.
WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 17: Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) speaks to the media on May 17, 2017 in Washington, DC. Today the Justice Department announced that former FBI director Robert Mueller will be a special counsel ove... WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 17: Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) speaks to the media on May 17, 2017 in Washington, DC. Today the Justice Department announced that former FBI director Robert Mueller will be a special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

The House Oversight Committee reached out directly to key figures in the Trump administration’s decision to add a citizenship question to the census, seeking interviews with the individuals, in letters that claimed the Commerce Department was stymieing the committee’s investigation.

The Commerce Department has not complied with a subpoena for certain documents, the committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and civil rights subcommittee Chairman Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said in the letters. Nor has the department cooperated with the committee’s request to interview the administration officials, according to the letters.

Additionally, the letters cited a provision in appropriations law that would allow for the docking of salaries for government officials who prevented or attempted to prevent someone from speaking to the committee.

The letters were sent to top Commerce official Earl Comstock, the department’s general counsel Peter Davidson, former department lawyer James Uthmeier and Gene Hamilton, who is currently at the Justice Department.

Comstock was the primary Commerce Department official working on getting the citizenship question added to the census, a request Secretary Wilbur Ross made in the early days of the Trump administration. Comstock reached out to a number of people both inside and outside of the government to discuss how to go about doing it.

Gene Hamilton, then an official at the Department of Homeland Security, was one of those people. According to a September 2017 memo Comstock wrote Ross, Comstock asked Hamilton if the DHS would put in a formal request that the question be added, and Hamilton told Comstock that the issue was more appropriate for the Justice Department, which had previously rebuffed Comstock.

Eventually, with an intervention in the form of a Ross phone call with then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Justice Department relented and submitted a formal request for the question in December 2017.

John Gore, the DOJ official who served as the the point person in formulating the request, has already sat for an interview with the committee, but he declined to answer many of its questions.

According to that same Comstock memo, after DHS and Justice initially turned Commerce down, Uthmeier was tasked with looking into the “legal issues and how Commerce could add the question to the Census itself.”

Uthmeier and Davidson ultimately acted as conduits between Commerce and Gore as he worked out the legal rationale for seeking the question.

This whole chain of events — and the other records and deposition produced in the litigation around the move — prompted three separate courts to rule that Ross’ conduct violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Those decisions, and whether the question stays on the 2020 census, are being reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Tuesday’s letters from the Oversight Committee asked the individuals respond to the voluntary interview requests by May 13.

Latest Muckraker

Notable Replies

  1. Avatar for jtx jtx says:

    Dont fall for it, they are just tricking you into whithholding their pay

  2. Avatar for caltg caltg says:

    And the Trump obstruction continues. This entire administration is corrupt to the core and its godfather – I mean “president” – needs to be removed NOW and criminally prosecuted.

  3. Redo the Census in 2022. Bill the RNC for the first one, corrupted by them.

  4. This whole chain of events — and the other records and deposition
    produced in the litigation around the move — prompted three separate
    courts to rule that Ross’ conduct violated the Administrative Procedure
    Act. Those decisions, and whether the question stays on the 2020 census,
    are being reviewed by the Supreme Court.

    The conservative majority of that court seemed entirely uninterested in the violation of the Administrative Procedure Act when the case was argued in open court.

    I am unable to confirm rumors that the newest member of the court suggested that the Administrative Procedure Act was probably drinking at the time of the supposed violation and has a reputation for being a little “loose.”

  5. Dressed like a slut. Also too.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

13 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for nickdanger Avatar for cervantes Avatar for squirreltown Avatar for drriddle Avatar for jkrogman Avatar for mike_in_houston Avatar for ottnott Avatar for nobiru Avatar for jtx Avatar for ljb860 Avatar for caltg Avatar for gusfabriani

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: