Schumer Floor Remarks On The Need For An Independent Department Of Justice Investigation Into Ties Between President Trump’s Administration and Russia and Delaying the Nomination Of Scott Pruitt For EPA Administrator
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer today delivered remarks on the Senate floor outlining the need for Attorney General Jeff Session to recuse himself from any investigation into ties between President Trump’s administration and Russia. Leader Schumer also cautioned his colleagues against rushing through the nomination of Scott Pruitt as EPA Administrator. Below are his remarks:
Madam President, I rise today on two topics – the need for the Attorney General to recuse himself from the executive branch investigation into Gen. Flynn and the nomination of Attorney General Pruitt to be EPA Administrator.
First, on the matter of the executive branch investigations into Gen. Flynn’s contact with the Russian ambassador. I rise again to stress my expectation that Attorney General Sessions will recuse himself from this investigation.
This morning we learned that -- according to reports in the Washington Post -- Gen. Flynn may have lied – lied – to FBI investigators about the content of his phone call with the Russian ambassador prior to the election.
That’s a potential felony offense, and it must be looked at and, if validated, potentially prosecuted by law enforcement officials at the Department of Justice.
The review must be independent and thorough and completely by the books. In order for it to be so, the Attorney General must recuse himself, pursuant to DOJ guidelines that prohibit members of the department from participating in investigations of close political allies or friends.
The guidelines are crystal clear. I’ve read them on the floor before, but they’re worth reading, because there’s no wiggle room here: “No Department of Justice employee may participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution… political relationship means a close identification with an elected official, candidate, political party or campaign organization arising from service as a principal advisor or official.”
Those are the words of the D.O.J. guidelines. They’re common sense. We don’t want a conflict of interest in our prosecutors. We don’t want the appearance of a conflict of interest in something as sacred as law enforcement here in America.
Madam President, it is patently absurd to think that the Attorney General, a man who served alongside General Flynn on candidate Trump’s campaign council, is prepared to lead this investigation in an impartial way, and in full compliance with those longstanding Department of Justice rules.
There would be a complete appearance of a conflict and might indeed be a conflict itself by the guidelines, it certainly is.
So there is simply no wiggle room here. AGs have recused themselves at least eight times over the past two decades to avoid the appearance of bias: twice under President Obama, five times under President Bush, and once under President Clinton.
To conclude I want to show and ask unanimous consent be put in the record an op-ed coauthored by then-Senator Sessions calling on Attorney General Loretta Lynch to recuse herself in the matter of Secretary Clinton’s emails.
Senator Sessions – right here – called for Loretta Lynch – then Attorney General – to recuse herself because of a conflict of interest. We hope, Madam President, we pray, Madam President, that Senator Sessions doesn’t have an enormous double standard by refusing to recuse himself now when he asked the previous Attorney General to do so.
We hope that President Trump will abide by the guidelines, encourage Senator Sessions to go by the guidelines and not again invoke any double standard. This op-ed makes it crystal clear. What was good enough for Loretta Lynch, who did step aside, is good enough for Attorney General Sessions, and it would be outrageous, outrageous, for him to be in charge of this investigation.
The op-ed said, “When a high public official is accused of serious wrongdoing and there is a sufficient factual predicate to investigate, it is imperative the investigation be thorough, with dispatch and without partisanship.”
So, Madam President, I hope Attorney General Jeff Sessions takes the words of Senator Jeff Sessions to heart. Every day that goes by without a recusal from the Attorney General, the cloud hanging over this investigation and over this administration gets darker and darker.
And every time the president and Senator Sessions – and Attorney General Sessions – confer, again the cloud hovers over them. What did they talk about? Was it this investigation?
So, Madam President, I hope that Attorney General Sessions will do the right thing and recuse himself. Justice, the American way, separation of powers require no less.
Now, Madam President, today we will vote on another cabinet nominee who is clouded by potential conflicts of interest and whose views are almost antithetical to the very purpose of the agency to which he’s nominated.
Mr. Pruitt is a climate science denier. Some say “skeptic” – but this is not an issue where you can be skeptical. Either you accept the overwhelming opinion of climate scientists and researchers, or you don’t.
Here’s Scott Pruitt on climate change, on Oklahoma talk radio: “Well, reasonable minds can disagree what is actually happening, whether it is happening, number one, whether there is a change in climate that is occurring, that the trajectory of it is something that is sustainable and whether that is actually happening…the debate about climate change is just that, a debate.”
I would invite this nominee to walk through Long Beach on Long Island and Staten Island in New York City in the days and weeks after super-storm Sandy, which rocked my state.
None of those residents, the thousands who lost homes, the hundreds of thousands who suffered injury, damage, economic problems from the flood, they don’t debate it nor should he.
…There was no debate about what happened there. Folks lost everything that ever belonged to them. There was no debate about that. 48 people in my state died. There was no debate about that.
Climate change will lead to more devastating natural disasters like Sandy, which was the third “100-year” storm to strike my state in a decade. Climate change will make asthma and respiratory diseases worse. It is increasing the range of deer ticks that cause Lyme disease.
No debate about that.
There is no debate that we have to do something about climate change.
Scott Pruitt, as head of our nation’s environmental protection agency, likely wouldn’t lift a finger.
But, Madam President, it's part of a lifelong pattern…
Instead of fighting for average Americans, Mr. Pruitt decided to make a name for himself among the far-right by endlessly suing the EPA in ways that would benefit large special interests that also happened to be campaign contributors.
In 13 of his 14 lawsuits against the EPA, he joined corporations and trade associations who had contributed to his campaign.
Now, Madam President, just yesterday an Oklahoma Judge ruled that Scott Pruitt must turn over approximately 3,000 emails relating to his communications with the fossil fuel industry. The very industry he represented in these lawsuits. We won’t get those emails until next Tuesday.
You’d expect my colleagues to be up in arms! Emails! Remember, emails! We should get them out, they said about Hillary Clinton. Same group in 2013 made Gina McCarthy waited 122 days to be confirmed for EPA administrator because Republicans felt she wasn’t honoring a commitment, they felt, to transparency. There were several inquiries into Lisa Jackson’s emails, another EPA administrator.
But the Majority and Majority Leader are is proceeding right along and rushing Attorney General Pruitt through the process. And we know why – they want you, my fellow Republicans, to vote for Mr. Pruitt before those emails come to light.
