Why Democrats Are Still Calling for an Independent Russia Commission

Even after the DOJ appointed a special counsel, some Democrats want to go further.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi meets with reporters on Capitol Hill Thursday.
AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
Adam Wollner
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Adam Wollner
May 18, 2017, 8 p.m.

Demo­crats got their first wish when the Justice De­part­ment named a spe­cial coun­sel to take over its in­vest­ig­a­tion in­to the Rus­si­an gov­ern­ment’s in­ter­fer­ence in the 2016 elec­tion and pos­sible ties to Pres­id­ent Trump’s as­so­ci­ates. Now they are still hop­ing an­oth­er one will be gran­ted: an in­de­pend­ent com­mis­sion.

Deputy At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Rod Ro­sen­stein’s de­cision to ap­point former FBI Dir­ect­or Robert Mueller to handle the Rus­sia probe was met with ap­plause by con­gres­sion­al Demo­crats, who were united in their push for a spe­cial pro­sec­utor after Trump un­ce­re­mo­ni­ously fired FBI Dir­ect­or James Comey. Some in the Sen­ate went as far as to say they would re­fuse to con­sider a nom­in­ee for Comey’s re­place­ment un­til one was named.

But for some Demo­crats on the Hill, a spe­cial coun­sel isn’t enough. Long be­fore Comey’s fir­ing, Demo­crats had been call­ing for an in­de­pend­ent com­mis­sion to look in­to Rus­si­an elec­tion med­dling. And they’ve re­it­er­ated those calls in the wake of Mueller’s ap­point­ment, ar­guing that a sep­ar­ate com­mis­sion would have com­plete in­de­pend­ence from the White House, as well as the abil­ity to provide le­gis­lat­ive re­com­mend­a­tions to help pre­vent fu­ture elec­tion in­ter­fer­ence.

There are key dif­fer­ences between a spe­cial coun­sel and an in­de­pend­ent com­mis­sion. While a spe­cial coun­sel is ap­poin­ted by the at­tor­ney gen­er­al (or deputy at­tor­ney gen­er­al in this case, since Jeff Ses­sions re­cused him­self), an in­de­pend­ent com­mis­sion con­sist­ing of out­side ex­perts is set up by Con­gress and ap­proved by the pres­id­ent, like the one cre­ated after the 9/11 at­tacks. And while a spe­cial coun­sel has the unique abil­ity to pro­sec­ute crimes, a com­mis­sion is only able to pro­duce a re­port of its find­ings.

Many Demo­crats think both are needed for the cur­rent Trump-Rus­sia probe.

“The value an in­de­pend­ent com­mis­sion adds is you have a body that is truly in­de­pend­ent of any polit­ic­al con­sid­er­a­tion, and also has all the re­sources it needs and a single fo­cus on the over­sight of what Rus­sia did, how we need to re­spond in the fu­ture, and it brings that polit­ic­al in­de­pend­ence and staff and re­sources on task,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, the rank­ing mem­ber on the House In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee, which is con­duct­ing its own Rus­sia in­vest­ig­a­tion. “So those are two dif­fer­ent needs, and I think they’re com­ple­ment­ary, not in com­pet­i­tion with each oth­er.”

Demo­crat­ic lead­ers, as well as a host of rank-and-file mem­bers in both cham­bers, have made clear they want an in­de­pend­ent com­mis­sion too. In a state­ment, House Minor­ity Lead­er Nancy Pelosi said that a spe­cial coun­sel “is the first step, but it can­not be the last,” adding that Mueller “can­not take the place of a truly in­de­pend­ent, out­side com­mis­sion.” House Demo­crats tried to force a floor vote on an in­de­pend­ent com­mis­sion Wed­nes­day.

Dick Durbin, the second-rank­ing Demo­crat in the Sen­ate, said an in­de­pend­ent com­mis­sion was ne­ces­sary “to de­vel­op policies to help pro­tect ourselves in fu­ture elec­tions from any coun­try hack­ing in­to us.” And Sen. Ben Cardin, the rank­ing Demo­crat on the For­eign Re­la­tions Com­mit­tee, who in­tro­duced le­gis­la­tion at the be­gin­ning of the year to es­tab­lish an in­de­pend­ent com­mis­sion, echoed those re­marks in a state­ment.

The prob­lem for Demo­crats, though, is that they will need not only their Re­pub­lic­an col­leagues but Trump to go along with their plan. Sens. John Mc­Cain and Lind­sey Gra­ham have pre­vi­ously called for a bi­par­tis­an se­lect com­mit­tee, which un­like an in­de­pend­ent com­mis­sion would be made up solely of mem­bers of Con­gress. Hours be­fore Ro­sen­stein’s an­nounce­ment, Sen. Lisa Murkowski raised the pos­sib­il­ity of a need for a spe­cial coun­sel or in­de­pend­ent com­mis­sion. Oth­er­wise, no oth­er Re­pub­lic­an in the Sen­ate has pub­licly called for an in­de­pend­ent com­mis­sion.

On the oth­er side of the Cap­it­ol, only 10 House Re­pub­lic­ans had called for an in­de­pend­ent in­vest­ig­a­tion of some kind, wheth­er a com­mis­sion, com­mit­tee, or coun­sel, pri­or to Mueller’s ap­point­ment, ac­cord­ing to The Wash­ing­ton Post. Reps. Justin Amash and Wal­ter Jones signed onto le­gis­la­tion in sup­port of an in­de­pend­ent com­mis­sion.

Trump, for his part, re­ferred to the Rus­si­an in­vest­ig­a­tions as “the single greatest witch hunt of a politi­cian in Amer­ic­an his­tory” on Twit­ter.

Aside from a lack of Re­pub­lic­an sup­port to add an­oth­er in­vest­ig­a­tion in­to mem­bers of their own party, some Demo­crats were also not as quick to push for an in­de­pend­ent com­mis­sion. Patty Mur­ray, the no. 3 Demo­crat in the Sen­ate, said “there are a num­ber of oth­er av­en­ues that will be pur­sued as well” fol­low­ing Mueller’s ap­point­ment. “We’re still gath­er­ing facts,” she ad­ded.

Sen. Claire Mc­Caskill, the rank­ing Demo­crat on the Home­land Se­cur­ity Com­mit­tee, sug­ges­ted a se­lect com­mit­tee may be ne­ces­sary “be­fore it’s all said and done.” But between the con­gres­sion­al probes and the spe­cial coun­sel, she said that time is not now.

“As long as the bi­par­tis­an in­vest­ig­a­tions in both houses are mov­ing for­ward and we’re mak­ing pro­gress, I don’t know that it’s es­sen­tial,” Mc­Caskill said.

Sen. Chris Murphy, a Demo­crat on the For­eign Re­la­tions Com­mit­tee, also left the door open to an in­de­pend­ent com­mis­sion, but raised con­cerns about hav­ing too many in­vest­ig­a­tions oc­cur­ring at once.

“Ul­ti­mately, there prob­ably is a danger in hav­ing too many cooks in the kit­chen,” Murphy said.

What We're Following See More »
UN Security Council Condemns N. Korea Launch
39 minutes ago
White House Snubs OGE’s Request for Info on Waivers
3 hours ago

"The Trump administration, in a significant escalation of its clash with the government’s top ethics watchdog, has moved to block an effort to disclose any ethics waivers granted to former lobbyists who now work in the White House or federal agencies." The White House sent a letter to OGE head Walter Shaub, which "challenged his legal authority to demand the information. Dozens of former lobbyists and industry lawyers are working in the Trump administration, which has hired them at a much higher rate than the previous administration. Keeping the waivers confidential would make it impossible to know whether any such officials are violating federal ethics rules or have been given a pass to ignore them."

Turkey Summons U.S. Ambassador
3 hours ago
Court Rules Against NC Voting Districts, Says They Were Racially Motivated
3 hours ago

"The Supreme Court ruled Monday that racial considerations pervaded the way North Carolina lawmakers drew congressional maps after the 2010 Census in order to maximize Republicans' advantage. The 5-3 ruling, written by Justice Elena Kagan, was the latest in a series of decisions by the justices against the excessive use of race in redistricting, the decennial process of drawing new district lines for Congress and state legislatures. Justice Clarence Thomas joined the court's four liberal justices in striking down the state's maps."

SCOTUS Rules Against Venue Shopping in Patent Cases
5 hours ago

Writing for an 8-0 Supreme Court on Monday, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that patent lawsuits "must be brought in the state where the defendant company is incorporated. ... The ruling likely spells an end to the near-monopoly the federal court in the Eastern District of Texas holds in handling patent cases. Plaintiffs for decades have filed suits in that pro-plaintiff district based on a broader interpretation of venue that made suits possible almost anywhere."


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.