tv Representatives on Russia Investigation CSPAN July 15, 2017 3:24am-3:57am EDT
deep change and transformation that there was not enough change that also brand. hehelps set the table for trump. >> watch sunday night at 9:00 tv.ern on c-span2's book >> on friday, democratic congressmen spoke on the house floor about recent revelations that donald trump jr. met with a lawyer with ties to the russian government during the presidential campaign. we will also your responses from republicans. this is half an hour. mr. gallego: mr. speaker, on july 11, donald trump jr. released a series of emails regarding his meeting with a russian government lawyer and an individual associated with the russian intelligence. don jr.'s emails are a smoke gun. it proves that the trump campaign was not only aware of the russian government's efforts to med until our elections, they were -- meddle in our elections, they were enthusiastic about accepting
russian support. what follows are the contents of those emails. they paint a disturbing picture of a campaign and now an administration willing to break the law and sell out to an adversary of the united states, in order to advance their own petty interests. our hope is that the american people will carefully consider the content of these messages and what they say about the fitness of donald trump and his senior advisors to hold high office. we'll begin. a comment posted by donald trump jr. on july 11, 2017. to everyone, in order to be totally transparent, which we now know he wasn't even in this email, i'm releasing the entire email chain of my emails with rob goldstein about the meeting on june 9, 2016. the first email on june 3, 2016, was from rob, who was relating a request from a president i knew from the 2013 miss universe pageant near moscow. he and his father have a very
highly respected company in moscow. the information they suggested they had about hillary clinton i thought was political opposition research. i first wanted to just have a phone call, but when that didn't work out, they said the women would be in new york and asked if i would meet. i decided to take that meeting. the woman, as she has publicly said, was not a government official. and as we have said, she had no information to provide and wanted to talk about the adoption policy and an act. to put this in context this occurred before the current russian fieger was in vogue. as rob goldstein said today in the press, the entire meeting was the most inane nonsense i have heard and i was agitated by it. nd of email. on june 3, 2016, at 10:36 a.m., rob goldstein wrote to donald trump jr. the following.
good morning. emen just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting. the crown prosecutor of russia met with his father this morning and in their meeting offered to good morning. provide the trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate hillary in her dealings with russia and would be very useful to your father. this is obviously very high level and sensitive information, but it's part of russia and its government support for mr. trump. helped along by the gentlemen. what do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to emen about it directly? i can also send this info to your father but it is ultrasensitive, so wanted to send to you first. best, rob goldstein. at 10:53 a.m., less than 20 minutes after that email, donald trump jr. wrote back. thanks, rob. i appreciate that. i am on the road at the moment but perhaps i should speak to
emen first. seems we have some time and if it's what you say it is, i love it. especially later in the summer. could we do a call first thing next week when i'm back? best, don. mr. speaker, i love it. his response was, i love it. i've worked in politics for a long time. i've never been approached with information from a foreign government. but if i were, my response would not be, i love it. my response would be, this is completely inappropriate. my response would be, don't ever contact me again. my response would be, i am calling the f.b.i. in this email, donald trump jr. showed his true colors. this email proves that he lacks basic integrity. and the willingness of jared kushner to attend that meeting proves that he too is no patriot.
>> after we finish reading these emails into the congressional record, we're going to discuss why it's a straight-up violation of the federal election campaign act. so on monday, june 6, 2016, rob goldstein writes back to donald trump jr. an email at 12:40 p.m. with the subject heading, regarding russia clinton. private and kfings. -- confidentiality. hi, don. let me know when you're ready to talk by phone on this hillary info. mr. lujan: wanted to try to schedule a time and -- mr. lieu: wanted to try to schedule a time and day. mr. gallego: on june 16, 2016, at 3:00 p.m., donald trump jr. wrote back, rob, could we speak now? d. mr. lieu: then rob goldstein replies to donald trump jr., that same day at 3:37 p.m., let me track him down in moscow. what number should he call?
by the way, any email that says tracking someone down in moscow might just raise some red flags. mr. gallego: on june 6, 2016, at 3:38 p.m., donald trump wrote back -- jr. wrote back, my cell number, we have omitted that cell number, unlike donald trump, we do not give out individual cell numbers, thanks, d. . lieu: goldstone replies, he's on stage in hoss cow he should be off in minutes. i'm sure he can call. mr. gallego: just a few minutes after receiving this email, donald trump jr. wrote back, moscow, thanks for the help. mr. lieu: the next day, at 4:27 p.m., rob goldstone wrote, don, hope all is well. he asked i schedule a meeting with you and the russian government attorney who is flying other on this thursday.
i believe you're aware of the meet, wonder if 3:00 p.m. or later on thursday works for you. i assume it would be at your office. best, rob goldstone. 2016, lego: on june 7, donald trump jr. writes, how about 3:00 at our office. thanks, appreciate your help setting this up. mr. lieu: rob goldstone wrote back later that day, perfect, won't sit in on the meeting but will bring them at 3:00 p.m. and introduce you, etc. i will send the names for the two people meeting with you for security when i have them later today. best, rob. we now know today that one of those names happens to be a society counterintelligence officer. mr. gallego: on june 7, 2016, at 6:46 p.m., donald trump jr. writes great. ul man forth, campaign boss, my brother-in-law, jared kushner, and me.
725 fifth avenue, 25th floor which is trump tower. mr. lieu: on june 8, the next day, 10:48 a.m., goldstone writes back, would it be possible to move the meeting to 4:00 p.m. because the russian thorne is in court until 3:00, i was just informed. best, rob. mr. gayay go: on june 8, 2016, at 11:15, donald trump jr. writes, yes, i can do that until unless you wanted to do 3:00 today instead. let me know, i'll lock it in either way. that's some eagerness that man has for this information. mr. lieu: on wednesday, june 8, at 11:18 a.m. rob goldstone wrote back, they can't do today as she hasn't landed yet from moscow. 3:00 p.m. is great tomorrow. best, rob. mr. gallego: this email is from donald trump, jr., sent wednesday, june 8, at 12:16
p.m., to jared kushner and paul man forth. bject -- fanaforft, subject, forward, clinton, private and confidential. meeting got moved to 4:00 tomorrow at my offices. best, don. mr. lieu: that completes the email chain and under federal law, under the federal election campaign act, you cannot solicit or accept any contribution from a foreign national or foreign country. and the law defines the contribution not as just a monetary donation but anything of value, in kind donation, opposition research. anything of value violates the law. and in this case, we absolutely have conspiracy to violate the federal election campaign act. i'm a former prosecutor, i know it's very easy to prove a charge of conspiracy. you just have to have the personal take one act in
furtherance of the conspiracy. so in this case, when donald trump jr. replies back to the offer of incriminating information and says, i love it, that's one act. he then proceeds to set up a meeting, that's another act. he then shows up at the meeting with jared kushner and paul manafort. that's a third act. that more than completes the crime of conspiracy. we have in black and white right here a violation of federal law. mr. gallego: the other thing we have to consider is this, right now there's a person in the white house that has lied on security clearance. a secured clearance we use to determine whether we shall trust somebody with top secret information for this country. jared kushner was in a meeting with a foreign agent. now we know that he was in a meeting not just with a foreign agent, but a former and quote-unquote, former, soviet counterintelligence officer. let me tell you something there is no such thing as former
counterintelligence officers if you ever work for the soviets. once you are in the k.g.b., you're always in the k.g.b. why was that person in that room? it was not to talk about adoption. it certainly wasn't there to talk about anything else but if anything it was there to pass information and the fact that jared kushner lied in his clearance, lied and omitted it until finally revealed today, really call into question whether that man should be in the white house right now and trusted with this type of sensitive information. ted, awe andy -- you and i were in the military and we had security clearances. if we had this type of mission in our security clearance what would have been our punishment? mr. lieu: our security clearance would have been suspended, and an investigation would be opened. i'm glad you mentioned kushner. people are asking, why does he
still have a security clearance? on the first security clearance form, an fs-86 form , he lied he did not disclose a single meeting with a russian. if you read the form it says if you make a false statement or omit material facts, you can be imprisoned omitted that information. he is then confronted and what does he do. he revises it. so then he submits a second security clearance form. now it turns out he lied on that one too because he did not disclose this latest meeting that happened to be with a russian counterintelligence officer. so then he had to submit a third form. and when you look at his explanation, according to media report , he said his staff hit the send button too soon. we both know that's not how you submit a clearance form. it's an elaborate process, you have to do a certification, you have to send it electronic, sign a paper and submit that with your signature. very elaborate.
now he's lying about the process in which he lied on the three security clearance forms. we don't know why he has security clearance or why he's in the white house. mr. gayay go: what's the motivation for omitting this meeting? there's clearly emails, pointed emails saying why are you going to be attending this meeting. there's a subject line that says clinton emails. there is a subject line that has to do with are augs -- with a russian agent a crown prosecutor, and now we know there is a former soviet counterintelligence agent that just happened to be there. and jared kushner omits it from his security clearance. that is not an accident. that is a criminal act. a criminal act that any other citizen in this country, any other soldier, sailor, marine, airman if we ever did that, we would be quickly prosecuted under the ucmj.
no. i'm controlling time. mr. lieu: let me follow up with what representative gallego said. we have a person in the white house now, with a security clearance, even though he's lied on at least two of those forms, so there actually needs to be an investigation. that security clearance needs to be suspened immediately. but also, you the, for any intelligence official watching this or reading about this, how can you trust jared kushner when he lied on these security clearance forms? it makes a mockery of the process. and keep in mind,s the same person that suggested setting up a secret back channel with the russians, at the russian embassy, the only reason you'd want to use russian equipment at the russian embassy is to hide information from u.s. intelligence. so even if his security clearance is not suspended, i hope that people working for him do not trust him.
mr. gallego: if you start seeing and putting it all together we know there's a clear narrative of jared kushner's involvements with the russians. he tried to set up a back channel, the hen -- then he admits his conversations and -- omits his conversations and meetings in a secure clearance. he continues to lie even though he's brought forth as being untruthful. and now we find ourselveses in a situation where there is basically zero trust that this man in the white house with top stret clearance is not compromised. in conclusion, let me close this. you just heard emails after emails, imagine this conversation happening the opposite way. imagine a conversation happening with a democrat, or the clintons saying, i have information and 45 timesmoscow is said
all together. imagine the idea that you're meeting in private and imagine all the followup lies that happened. what would be occurring right now? what would be occurring is what we saw last year, consistent oversight. but there is none. there is no oversight right now. paul ryan has not taken this by the helm, has not done any type of oversight. the house republicans have abdicated their responsibility and have allowed donald trump and all those other members of his family and the administration that have been compromised to continue being a threat to our national security in the white house. this should not be the way. partisanship should never be above patriotism. but what we are seeing right now is naked partisanship being exposed and pushed as far as possible in the hopes of
protected a faulty president, his administration, and his family. that is not american. that is not what any of us ever signed up for to do. we swore, whether it was in the armed services committee, whether it was when we were in the armed services, whether it was when we came here to congress, to uphold the constitution of the united states and protect it. right now, we can honestly say that's not occurring. there's an absolute abdication happening right now of leadership from house republicans. mr. lieu: thank you. let me conclude by saying that the president said that most people would have taken this meeting. that's just not true. again, under federal election campaign act, if you solicit or conspire to solicit or show up at a meeting where you expect to get opposition research from a foreign national, that's a violation of federal law. so in fact most people would not
have take then meeting. unless they were crooked. and we have an example here of what happens when the al gore campaign got information. they were sent anonymously briefing notice and things that then bush was being briefed on and so on. they took that package and turned it over to the f.b.i. that's what should have happened in this case. and let me sort of conclude as well with thanking representative gallego and this is a pretty big deal. we have people in the white house that believe they're above the law. and the lesson in watergate is that no one is above the law. mr. gallego: thank you. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair would remind members to direct all remarks to the chair and to formally yield and reclaim time when under recognition.
under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher for 30 minutes. mr. rohrabacher: i'm sorry my two colleagues refused to yield any time. when-year talking, especially when they're using phrases like naked partisanship, that's very interesting, isn't it, when we could have had a nice dialogue here? and i was asking for a chance to go into a dialogue so the american people could understand what was being said rather than hese incredible -- naked partisanship of people who disagree but i won't yield my time to have a dialogue about it. i'm afraid that doesn't cut it. this is yet another example of hat we have seen, people using sinister-sounding descriptions in order to basically distract us from some of the corruption and i might add questionable
activities of their own presidential candidate in the last election who was defeated because the american people did not trust that candidate. and by the way, i would like to have asked, i'm sorry that my friends have left, and would yield any time for a question, whether or not they believe that hillary clinton's activities in russia while she was a government official, was she involved in money raising from russian oligarches to the tune of millions, tens of millions of dollars, did she actually -- was her husband involved in raising this money while she was secretary of state? or while she was a candidate for president of the united states? over in russia? millions of dollars to the clinton foundation and i understand even hundreds of thousands of dollars put in her
husband's pocket for a speech that he gave in russia. these things need to be looked at. but instead, what we're hearing about is sinister-sounding words about a meeting, a meeting, where someone said they had some information that would help, yes, the campaign, but the reason it would help the campaign is it was -- there was supposedly information that showed that hillary clinton was involved in some activity that was contrary to the interests of the united states or contrary to the law. and to the law. if someone says they want to give you information, there's nothing wrong with that. in fact, i would hope my colleagues who just said what is happening on our side of the aisle is naked partisanship, i wonder if the democratic party and my other colleagues in this
body are calling for hillary to release all of her emails and make sure that we have under oath an explanation of these transactions to the clinton foundation. but instead, we're hearing all sorts of sinister descriptions of a meeting that was going to give information. i will tell you right now, everybody in this body, if they think there could be information that's important for our country to know from any foreigner, we should talk to them and find out what it is. and it is not illegal to receive information from someone especially if you are engaged in an activity that's aimed at trying to get understanding on policies that you plan to implement as a leader in the united states, as an legitimated leader. there is absolutely nothing rong -- by the way, i am the
hairman of the europe, asian subcommittee, including emerging threats. so in my jurisdiction is russia. should i ever turn down a chance to talk to somebody who has information for me negative or positive about russia? no, i shouldn't. and neither should the trump campaign have ignored any opportunity to receive more information about what was being done by hillary perhaps and the raising of the millions of dollars for the hill ari foundation. so that was a legitimate thing to ask. and is the information accurate or not accurate? if it's not accurate, you don't want to touch it. you know the democrats -- i shouldn't say the democrats, many people were disturbed that
there had been a release of emails during the campaign and a lot of them questioned about this whole russia issue, whether russia or somebody else hacked into the system and released those emails. i think it's important if truth was revealed. if someone is releasing false information, the public should be upset. but should not be upset if they are being given a chance to see more information that is accurate information on this issue. so i would hope the american people -- i trust the american people are smart enough to see a diversionary tactic using sinister words over and over again to describe something that is perfectly legal and talking to anybody to get more information to help you make your decisions, that's a good
thing and not a bad thing. i would yield to my colleague. mr. gohmert: i appreciate so much my very good friend from california with whom i have traveled a abroad and had amazing meetings with representatives of countries around the world. and as i listen to our friends on the other side talk about this issue, it appears very clear what they're saying is every member of the house who has ever met with someone from a foreign country and ask questions whether they believe what they were given or not, is guilty of a crime and should be damned to hell for all eternity. is that my friend's impression? mr. rohrabacher: it seems to me that's what's being said. and those people are so sinister, you don't listen to them or it may be illegal.
but in reality, we are talking about one person meeting with another who may have information and we in the congress and anyone running for public office should be listening and seeing is there information that is important for our country to know. mr. gohmert: if the gentleman would yield, i appreciate the fact that the gentleman from california and i have met with -- he was then the leader of iraq, neither the gentleman from california or i cared for the man. he was prime minister of iraq. he did a great deal of damage to iraq. he along with president obama dramatically weakened iraq. prime minister malaki -- but we were asking for answers to questions that we consider very serious. for example, i was asking about
is commitment to protect the refugees from iran that he had pledged to protect. and my friend from california was asking about the iraqi pledge to help pay us back for some of our costs in making iraq free. and those two issues so infuriated prime minister malaki, we got word later when we were on the c-1230, that we were being banned from iraq by the prime minister. but to hear our friends across the aisle talk, every time one of them and every time one of us on this side of the aisle have asked, even people we considered to be despicable and done terrible things. we wanted answers that we were committing a crime and demanding those answers. i also know my friend from
california got similar treatment from a man we believe is corrupt who was the leader of afghanistan at the time. i don't find any crime or any harm in asking questions and getting answers, even from people that -- for whom we have no respect. i appreciate the gentleman from california yielding. i think it's a good thing. if somebody's got information, even if you don't care for them, to try to get answers to our questions. mr. rohrabacher: we know now people are trying to frighten us and others not to meet with people and not to talk to people. and i wonder why. as far as i'm concerned, i do not have a blind trust in whatever our intelligence agencies give us. let me note, some of the things that are being quoted, aren't even being quoted from our intelligence agencies during this whole national discussion on what russia's interaction
with us has been for the last couple of years. the fact is that these intelligence reports are filled weasel, ll words and making it like it sounds something but put a phrase something to not commit you in defending that particular position as being factual. with that being said, i would hope the american people pay close attention to the sinister words and the weasel words and pay attention to the basic nonsense in telling us, oh, a horrible crime has been committed now because someone in the trump campaign, whoever it was, i don't care if it was donald trump's relatives or his son or whoever it was, anybody -- in the campaign whatsoever wants to talk to anybody in the world to get information, i
think that's a good thing. and now whether or not at that point, it has to be determined whether it's accurate information to move forward with inaccurate information is wrong, but that's your job, too, to verify what somebody is telling liveshington journal, every day with news and policy issues that impact here. coming up this morning, atlantic council discusses russia's lobbying effort to get u.s. sanctions. jessica silver greenberg from the new york times will talk about consumer lawsuits against banks and credit card companies. in our spotlight on magazine montalaysimon discusses his fees on so-called rust belt cities are trying to adjust to a high-tech feature. watch c-span's washington
journal live at 7:00 eastern this morning. join the discussion. >> this weekend on book tv on c-span2, tonight at 7 p.m. eastern, former chest champion talks about his book deep thinking on the future of intelligence and its impact on society. >> machines, for centuries, have been taking intelligence and its all forms of manual labor. when machines will take over jobs from, you name it, now the only jobs, difference is machines are coming after people with political influence and twitter accounts. suddenly, it is a big story. >> at 9:15 p.m., jason riley discusses his book false black power and his argument that blacks are disadvantaged economically by political capital. >> most groups in america and
elsewhere whoever is in economically have done so with little or no political influence. groups that have enjoyed political success have tended to rise more slowly. it is not that you cannot take the political rap, you -- route, you can, but chances are you will rise more slowly. >> forit is not that you cannotd schedule, go toe booktv.org. governors from across the u.s. are holding their annual summer meeting in providence, rhode island. vice president mike pence is a former governor at indiana. he addressed the gathering and talked about efforts to replace the current health care law. years introduced by virginia governor -- he is introduced by virginia governor terry mcauliffe.