Sally Yates Hearing Reveals Limits Of Congress’ Ability To Investigate Russia

Republican lawmakers used their time to ask the former Justice Department official unrelated questions.
LOADINGERROR LOADING

WASHINGTON ― Sally Yates’ testimony before a Senate subcommittee on Monday was highly anticipated. It would be the first time the public would get to hear an inside, on-the-record account of the Justice Department’s warning to the White House about former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s interactions with a Russian government official.

The testimony of Yates, who was acting attorney general for the first 10 days of Donald Trump’s presidency, was compelling. She recounted meetings with White House Counsel Don McGahn about concerns that Flynn could be compromised by the Russian government.

But the hearing also showed how political grandstanding, well-crafted aspersions and off-topic questions can weaken congressional investigations into such a crucial topic.

Yates, a 27-year Justice Department veteran, was confirmed as deputy attorney general during the Obama administration by a Senate vote of 84-12. Nevertheless, several Republican senators on Monday attempted to smear her as a partisan Democrat.

Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) questioned her about a decision that led to her swift termination: instructing Justice Department attorneys not to defend Trump’s first executive order because she believed it unlawfully targeted Muslims. (That line of questioning may have backfired: Yates wound up revealing that DOJ Office of Legal Counsel attorneys who signed off on the text of the executive order had been instructed not to tell her about it, and that she learned about it from news accounts.)

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) asked if Yates or former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who testified alongside her, had ever leaked information to the press. When they denied it, Kennedy followed up with Yates, asking if she knew of anyone at the Justice Department who had leaked to reporters.

Samuel Corum/Getty Images

It’s not unusual for congressional hearings to veer off the topic. When lawmakers have the opportunity to publicly grill high-profile witnesses, they often use their allotted time to ask questions on topics they are most interested in, regardless of how it relates to the intended purpose of the hearing.

When FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency head Michael Rogers testified at a House Intelligence Committee hearing in March that was supposedly about Russian interference in the 2016 elections, Republican lawmakers focused extensively on classified leaks to reporters. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) asked Comey if he had considered prosecuting journalists who published classified information.

Last week, Comey appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a routine oversight hearing of the FBI. Democrats and Republicans alike delivered scathing speeches, aimed at portraying the FBI director as a pawn of the opposite party ― cutting into the time they could have spent asking substantive questions about the bureau’s broad range of activities.

Part of the problem is that lawmakers have an incentive to use their limited public face-time with government officials in a way that appeals to their supporters. High-profile hearings that feature prominent witnesses are often broadcast live on television and live-streamed. If a lawmaker’s donors and voters care more about former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server than potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, that lawmaker has little reason to focus on Russia.

That dynamic is one reason members of Congress are prohibited from using congressional proceedings in political campaigns. It also explains why obscure hearings on niche issues are typically a better place to find lawmakers asking nuanced, on-topic questions aimed at unearthing facts rather than scoring political points.

The fact that congressional hearings are inherently political is a compelling argument in favor of establishing an independent committee to investigate the role Russia played in the election, and whether the Trump campaign colluded. Lawmakers demonstrated during Monday’s hearing they have a politically motivated interest in either uncovering information about the scandal ― or deflecting attention away from it.

That tension has already forced the head of the House Intelligence Committee to recuse himself from the Russia investigation, and has slowed progress in the Senate Intelligence Committee’s probe.

With the exception of a handful of Republicans ― Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), John McCain (Ariz.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Ben Sasse (Neb.), for example ― most members of Trump’s party have downplayed the significance of Moscow’s election meddling and the question of whether members of Trump’s campaign collaborated with them. That’s because lending legitimacy to any of the ongoing Russia investigations would mean bucking a president of their own party.

Monday morning, before the hearing began, Trump tweeted about it, urging lawmakers to ask questions focusing on leaks instead of the stated topic: “Russian Interference in the 2016 United States Election.” Soon after the hearing ended, he tweeted again, declaring the “Russia-Trump collusion story is a total hoax.”

Before You Go

LOADINGERROR LOADING

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot