Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, delivered the following opening remarks during the Committee markup of Rep. Mark Meadows’ resolution of inquiry, H. Res. 938, which requests information about Hillary Clinton and the alleged wrongful surveillance of Carter Page:

“Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Not counting Mr. Lieu’s resolution on the pardon power, which we will consider later this morning, my colleagues and I have introduced five resolutions of inquiry so far this Congress.

“We have sought information about the early stages of the Russia investigation and the scope of the Attorney General’s recusal from that investigation.  We asked for documents related to the Trump Administration’s many abuses of the ethics laws.  We have asked for information about the firing of James Comey—particularly after President Trump told us he fired the Director because of “this Russia thing with Trump and Russia.”  And we have asked for evidence to back up the President’s assertion—still a total lie, as far as we can tell—that President Obama was a “bad/sick man” who “wiretapped” Trump Tower. 

“In the ordinary course of business, under the leadership of chairmen of either party, none of these resolutions would have been necessary.  Long before it would have come to this, we would have conducted oversight of the Administration and held hearings on each of these topics.

“But in the era of Donald Trump, on each of these important issues, House Republicans are largely silent.  Our Majority has chosen to ignore each of these problems. 

“We have turned to these resolutions as a tool to force the Committee to debate matters that Republicans seem unwilling to debate.  Each time, the Majority has rejected these basic requests for transparency along party lines.

“So what are we to make of the Meadows resolution?

“H. Res. 938 covers more or less the only subject matter that the Majority wants to investigate this Congress—namely, Hillary Clinton.  It also speaks to the theory that Carter Page was wrongly surveilled by the Department of Justice—the same Carter Page whom, it has been reported, was found more likely than not to be an agent of the Russian government four times by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

“There are a number of important issues facing our Committee right now.  Hillary Clinton’s emails and Carter Page’s general trustworthiness are not among them.

“Nevertheless, I will support the Meadows resolution. 

“H. Res. 938 asks for information to which this Committee is largely entitled.

“Provided that our request does not infringe on an ongoing criminal investigation, and provided that the FISA documents requested here are treated as sensitive and classified documents, the Department of Justice should produce these materials. 

“Yes, this request overlaps with the Chairman’s ongoing investigation—the Committee has asked for all of these documents already—but I have no problem with our making the same request twice.  I hope that my colleagues will provide us with the same consideration when we ask for documents related to more pressing matters later today.

“Now, as Chairman Goodlatte often reminds us when we mark up resolutions of inquiry sponsored by Democratic members, “[r]esolutions of inquiry are not subpoenas.  Rather, resolutions of inquiry, if acted upon by the House, have no greater legal force or effect than sending the Attorney General or the President a letter requesting this information.”

“I raise this point, not only to assure my colleagues that the Meadows resolution can do no harm, but also because it succinctly captures the current state of the subpoena issued in March by Chairman Goodlatte—a subpoena that has no greater legal force or effect than sending the Department of Justice a letter, because the Chairman did not follow the rules when he sent it.

“The Chairman provided me with a draft of one subpoena on March 19, and issued a different subpoena on March 22.  According to the Parliamentarians, the differences are material and the subpoena is unenforceable.

“I wrote to the Chairman last week about this error, and I ask unanimous consent to include that letter in the record now.

“I do not make this point because I am “blocking transparency,” as an anonymous Republican Committee staffer told Politico. 

“Rather, I make this point because I insist on transparency.  If you will not put these subpoenas to a vote, Mr. Chairman—as you promised you would, when we changed the rules last Congress to give you this authority—then you must provide us with the exact language you intend to use, as our rules require.  I am certain that Republicans will insist on the same courtesy if the shoe is on the other foot next year.

“I will support the Meadows resolution.  It can’t hurt to ask for information, even if I would prioritize other lines of inquiry at this time. 

“I only hope that, as this markup progresses, my Republican colleagues will allow for transparency in other matters as well. I yield back.”

###