The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“CALLING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Senate section on pages S1590-S1591 on March 6, 2017.
The Department is one of the oldest in the US, focused primarily on law enforcement and the federal prison system. Downsizing the Federal Government, a project aimed at lowering taxes and boosting federal efficiency, detailed wasteful expenses such as $16 muffins at conferences and board meetings.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
CALLING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon on a few matters: first, Russia and the continuing investigation into Russian interference in our election and the ties between the Trump campaign, transition team, and Russia.
The events of this weekend, which included another troubling, baseless tweet from the President, highlight and, in fact, strengthen the argument for a special prosecutor to conduct the investigation. And the American people agree. A CNN/ORC poll this morning showed that about two-thirds of Americans think a special prosecutor should conduct the investigation--67 percent of the Independents and even 43 percent of the Republicans. The trend line suggests these numbers will continue to grow.
So my Republican colleagues should understand that what they know in their hearts is the right thing to do. Do a strong, impartial investigation and get to the bottom of this. That is where the American people want them to go. The American people disagree with President Trump and want a thorough and impartial investigation--even 43 percent of Republicans. They are right.
A special prosecutor is the best way to ensure that an investigation proceeds impartially for several reasons.
First, by Department of Justice guidelines that are set up for this purpose, a special counsel is not subject to day-to-day supervision by the Attorney General--now recused--or anyone else at the Justice Department. That means the special prosecutor would have much greater latitude in whom he can subpoena, which questions he can ask, and how to conduct the investigation. Second, the prosecutor can only be removed for good cause, such as misconduct, not to quash the investigation. So there is an insularity there. He or she is protected if they are moving forward on the investigation. Third, there is built in congressional oversight. Congress is notified whenever a special counsel is appointed, removed, or finished with the investigation. Last, the special counsel has the independence to prosecute not only the subject of an investigation but anyone who attempts to interfere.
This is the right way to go. Let me quote Attorney General Jeff Sessions on this issue. Here is what he once said: ``The appropriate response when the subject matter is public and it arises in a highly-
charged political atmosphere is for the Attorney General to appoint a Special Counsel of great public stature and indisputable independence to assure the public the matter will be handled without partisanship.''
If there were ever a case that fit exactly what then-Senator, now-
Attorney General Sessions called for, this is it.
This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee is going to have a hearing on the nomination of Mr. Rosenstein to serve as the Deputy Attorney General. During that hearing, Mr. Rosenstein should commit to naming a special prosecutor to look into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia. Mr. Rosenstein, by reputation, is a fair man. He is a career prosecutor. Now that the Attorney General has recused himself, Mr. Rosenstein, pending confirmation, will have the duty to appoint a special prosecutor. If he will not appoint a special prosecutor, he will need a darn good reason. It is hard for me to see one right now.
Whether Mr. Rosenstein will appoint a special prosecutor will be front and center tomorrow at the Judiciary Committee's hearing and far and away the most important question he needs to answer. As I mentioned last week, if, pending confirmation, Mr. Rosensetin delays or refuses to appoint a special prosecutor, Congress should consider reviving a narrower version of the independent counsel law.
Also, we should make sure, certain, that the investigation has not been interfered with thus far. I sent a letter today to the inspector general of the Department of Justice, Michael Horowitz, which was made public today, urging him to open an immediate investigation to determine if anyone has interfered with this investigation up to now, either attempting to influence the direction of the investigation or those conducting it.
The Attorney General should have recused himself on day one. I asked him to do it almost 3 weeks ago, on February 14. We need to know if he or anyone else has meddled in this investigation in any way. His misleading statements to the Judiciary Committee about his meetings with the Russian Ambassador only add suspicion.
Attorney General Sessions has been in charge of this investigation for 3 weeks. We need to know if he or anyone else did anything in that time to hinder the investigation because it is absolutely critical that we protect the integrity of this investigation. That means ensuring that it is completely independent going forward and that nothing has already occurred that could compromise it. The good news is, the inspector general can take this investigation on his own and go forward with what we asked for in the letter on his own. I would urge him to do so.
____________________
