69–008 

115TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 115–74 

RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY REQUESTING THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTING 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO TRANSMIT, RESPECTIVELY, CERTAIN DOCUMENTS TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RELATING TO COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF RUSSIA 

MARCH 31, 2017.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. GOODLATTE, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

ADVERSE REPORT 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H. Res. 184] 

[Including Committee Cost Estimate] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the resolution (H. Res. 184) of inquiry requesting the President and directing the Attorney General to transmit, respectively, certain documents to the House of Representatives relating to communications 

with the government of Russia, having considered the same, reports unfavorably thereon with an amendment and recommends 

that the resolution as amended not be agreed to. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 2 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2 

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 2 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 5 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 5 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 5 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 6 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 6 

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 6 

Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 6 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 7 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 7 

Advisory on Earmarks ............................................................................................. 7 

Section-by-Section Analysis .................................................................................... 7 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 7 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

1Wm. Holmes Brown, et al., House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents, and Procedures 

of the House ch. 49, § 6, p. 834 (2011). 

The Amendment 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the following: 

That the President is requested, and the Attorney General of the United States is 

directed, to transmit, respectively (in a manner appropriate to classified information, if the President or Attorney General determines appropriate), to the House of 

Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution, copies of any document, record, memo, correspondence, or other communication 

in their possession, or any portion of any such communication, that refers or relates 

to the following: 

(1) Any meeting or communication that occurred between Senator Jeff Sessions and any representative of the Russian government, including his meetings 

with the Russian Ambassador to the United States, Sergey I. Kislyak, on July 

18, 2016, and September 8, 2016. 

(2) Senator Sessions’ testimony before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary 

on January 10, 2017, including but not limited to his statement that he ‘‘did 

not have communications with the Russians’’. 

(3) Senator Sessions’ written response to Senator Patrick Leahy’s letter of 

January 17, 2017. 

(4) Attorney General Sessions’ letter of March 6, 2017, to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. 

(5) Senator Sessions’ preparation for confirmation hearings before the Senate 

Committee on the Judiciary, with respect to the subject of contact between 

President Trump’s campaign and any representative of the Russian government. 

(6) Attorney General Sessions’ recusal from any investigation related to the 

2016 Presidential election, but not from other related matters, and the implementation of that recusal. 

(7) The application of part 600 of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, to any 

case involving the 2016 Presidential election or any related matter. 

(8) Any meeting that occurred between any employee of President Trump’s 

campaign or transition team and any representative of the Russian government, 

including any meeting that involved Donald J. Trump, Michael Flynn, Jared 

Kushner, Carter Page, J.D. Gordon, Richard Burt, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, 

or Michael Cohen. 

Purpose and Summary 

House Resolution 184 is a non-binding resolution of inquiry that 

requests that the Trump Administration provide the House of Representatives with certain documents related to communications 

with the government of Russia. 

Background and Need for the Legislation 

Resolutions of inquiry, if properly drafted, are given privileged 

parliamentary status in the House. This means that, under certain 

circumstances, a resolution of inquiry can be considered on the 

House floor even if the committee to which it was referred has not 

ordered the resolution reported and the majority party’s leadership 

has not scheduled it for consideration. Clause 7 of Rule XIII of the 

Rules of the House of Representatives requires the committee to 

which the resolution is referred to act on the resolution within 14 

legislative days, or a motion to discharge the committee from consideration is considered privileged on the floor of the House. In calculating the days available for committee consideration, the day of 

introduction and the day of discharge are not counted.1

Under the Rules and precedents of the House, a resolution of inquiry is a means by which the House may request information from 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

2 7 Deschler’s Precedents of the United States House of Representatives, H. Doc. No. 94–661, 

94th Cong., 2d Sess., ch. 24, § 8. 3 A resolution that seeks more than factual information does not enjoy privileged status. 

Brown, supra note 1, at 833–34. 4 Christopher M. Davis, Congressional Research Service, Resolutions of Inquiry: An Analysis 

of Their Use in the House, 1947–2011 at i (2012). 5 Id. 

6 Id. 

the President or the head of one of the executive departments. According to Deschler’s Precedents, it is a ‘‘simple resolution making 

a direct request or demand of the President or the head of an executive department to furnish the House of Representatives with specific factual information in the possession of the executive 

branch.’’ 2 Such resolutions must ask for facts, documents, or specific information; they may not be used to request an opinion or require an investigation.3 Resolutions of inquiry are not akin to subpoenas, they have no legal force, and thus compliance by the Executive Branch with the House’s request for information is purely 

voluntary. 

According to a study conducted by the Congressional Research 

Service (CRS), between 1947 and 2011, 290 resolutions of inquiry 

were introduced in the House.4 Within this period, CRS found that 

‘‘two periods in particular, 1971–1975 and 2003–2006, saw the 

highest levels of activity on resolutions of inquiry’’ and that the 

‘‘Committees on Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and the Judiciary 

have received the largest share of references.’’ 5 CRS further found 

that ‘‘in recent Congresses, such resolutions have overwhelmingly 

become a tool of the minority party in the House.’’ 6

A Committee has a number of choices after a resolution of inquiry is referred to it. It may vote on the resolution up or down 

as is or it may amend it, and it may report the resolution favorably, unfavorably, or with no recommendation. The fact that a committee reports a resolution of inquiry adversely does not necessarily 

mean that the committee opposes looking into the matter. In the 

past, resolutions of inquiry have frequently been reported adversely 

for several reasons. The two most common reasons are substantial 

compliance and competing investigations. 

House Resolution 184 essentially seeks two types of information 

from the Trump Administration. First, it requests documents regarding whether then-Senator Jeff Sessions misled the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding his contacts with Russian officials 

during the consideration of his confirmation to be Attorney General. Second, the resolution requests documents related to Russia’s 

interference with the 2016 Presidential election and alleged collusion with the Trump campaign. 

In regard to the request for documents related to the allegation 

that then-Senator Sessions misled the Senate Judiciary Committee, 

the resolution appears to be a waste of valuable time and resources 

of the Committee, the House, and, if acted upon by the House, the 

Trump Administration. The Senate Judiciary Committee has examined Sessions’ testimony and responses to questions for the record 

and has determined that he has cleared up any confusion regarding 

his responses to questions regarding his contacts with Russia. After 

receiving a letter from Attorney General Sessions supplementing 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

7Letter from the Hon. Jeff Sessions, Attorney General of the United States, to the Hon. 

Charles E. Grassley and Hon. Diane Feinstein, Senate Committee on the Judiciary (Mar. 6, 

2017). 8Press Release, Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, Attorney General Clears Confusion on Hearing Testimony (Mar. 6, 2017). 9 Nomination of Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States, Questions for the 

Record from Senator Leahy at 26 (Jan. 17, 2017) (emphasis added). 10 Id. 11Sessions, supra note 7. 12 Id. 13 Hearing on Russian Active Measures Investigation Before H. Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence, 115th Cong. (2017) (statement of James Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation). 

his Senate testimony,7 Chairman Grassley determined that Sessions took ‘‘quick action to clear up confusion about his statement’’ 

and that the committee has no plans to ask Sessions to appear before the committee before its annual oversight hearing with the 

Justice Department.8

Moreover, a careful examination of the responses at issue makes 

clear that while some could allow themselves to be confused by Sessions’ responses, they were not misleading. Senator Leahy asked 

Sessions whether he had been ‘‘in contact with anyone connected 

to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election.’’ 9

Sessions responded that he had not.10 Senator Franken asked Sessions a question regarding his communications as a campaign ‘‘surrogate.’’ 11 Sessions responded that while he has been called a campaign surrogate, he did not have any communications with the 

Russians as a campaign surrogate.12

In other words, Sessions was asked specifically about contacts 

with Russia regarding, or on behalf of, the Trump campaign. He 

was not asked about general contacts he may have had with Russia 

outside of the context of the Trump campaign, such as contacts he 

may have had as part of his role as a U.S. Senator. Accordingly, 

the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded that there does not appear to be anything misleading about his answers. 

As to the resolution’s request for information regarding alleged 

ties between the Trump campaign and transition team and the 

Russian government, there are multiple investigations into these 

matters that are ongoing and it would be inappropriate for this 

Committee or the House to seek documents related to those investigations through a resolution of inquiry at this time. Both the 

House and Senate Intelligence Committees are conducting investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election and the alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. 

Moreover, in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, 

the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, James Comey, 

confirmed that the FBI ‘‘is investigating the Russian government’s 

efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government 

and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and 

Russia’s efforts.’’ 13 The Judiciary Committee strongly believes that 

these ongoing investigations by the Legislative and Executive 

Branches should be allowed to proceed, as warranted, without outside interference. 

Given the fact that two congressional committees and our nation’s chief law enforcement agency are investigating this matter, 

there is no reason for the House to request this information 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

through a resolution of inquiry. The Judiciary Committee and the 

House have more important business to attend to than needlessly 

requesting information that is already available to those actually 

investigating this matter. The Judiciary Committee will investigate 

any credible allegations of misconduct by members of the Executive 

Branch to the extent such allegations fall within this Committee’s 

jurisdiction. However, the Committee will not do so through politically-charged resolutions of inquiry that could jeopardize the integrity of ongoing investigations. 

Hearings 

The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H. Res. 184. 

Committee Consideration 

On March 29, 2017, the Committee met in open session and ordered House Resolution 184 unfavorably reported, with an amendment, by a roll call vote of 15 to 11, a quorum being present. 

Committee Votes 

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the following 

roll call votes occurred during the Committee’s consideration of H. 

Res. 184. 

1. Motion to report H. Res. 184 unfavorably to the House. Approved 15 to 11. 

ROLLCALL NO. 1 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman ................................. X ........ .............

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI) ..................................... X ........ .............

Mr. Smith (TX) .......................................................... ........ ........ .............

Mr. Chabot (OH) ........................................................ ........ ........ .............

Mr. Issa (CA) .............................................................. ........ ........ .............

Mr. King (IA) ............................................................. ........ ........ .............

Mr. Franks (AZ) ......................................................... X ........ .............

Mr. Gohmert (TX) ...................................................... X ........ .............

Mr. Jordan (OH) ........................................................ X ........ .............

Mr. Poe (TX) ............................................................... ........ ........ .............

Mr. Chaffetz (UT) ...................................................... X ........ .............

Mr. Marino (PA) ........................................................ ........ ........ .............

Mr. Gowdy (SC) ......................................................... X ........ .............

Mr. Labrador (ID) ...................................................... X ........ .............

Mr. Farenthold (TX) .................................................. ........ ........ .............

Mr. Collins (GA) ........................................................ X ........ .............

Mr. DeSantis (FL) ..................................................... ........ ........ .............

Mr. Buck (CO) ............................................................ X ........ .............

Mr. Ratcliffe (TX) ....................................................... X ........ .............

Ms. Roby (AL) ............................................................ X ........ .............

Mr. Gaetz (FL) ........................................................... X ........ .............

Mr. Johnson (LA) ....................................................... X ........ .............

Mr. Biggs (AZ) ........................................................... X ........ .............


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

ROLLCALL NO. 1—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member ................. ........ X .............

Mr. Nadler (NY) ......................................................... ........ X .............

Ms. Lofgren (CA) ....................................................... ........ ........ .............

Ms. Jackson Lee (TX) ................................................ ........ ........ .............

Mr. Cohen (TN) .......................................................... ........ X .............

Mr. Johnson (GA) ...................................................... ........ ........ .............

Mr. Deutch (FL) ......................................................... ........ X .............

Mr. Gutierrez (IL) ...................................................... ........ ........ .............

Ms. Bass (CA) ............................................................ ........ ........ .............

Mr. Richmond (LA) .................................................... ........ ........ .............

Mr. Jeffries (NY) ........................................................ ........ X .............

Mr. Cicilline (RI) ........................................................ ........ X .............

Mr. Swalwell (CA) ..................................................... ........ X .............

Mr. Lieu (CA) ............................................................. ........ X .............

Mr. Raskin (MD) ........................................................ ........ X .............

Ms. Jayapal (WA) ...................................................... ........ X .............

Mr. Schneider (IL) ..................................................... ........ X .............

Total ............................................................. 15 11 .............

Committee Oversight Findings 

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures 

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable because this resolution does not provide new 

budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures. 

Committee Cost Estimate 

In compliance with clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that implementing this non-binding resolution would not result in any significant costs. The Congressional Budget Office did not provide a cost 

estimate for the resolution. 

Duplication of Federal Programs 

No provision of H. Res. 184 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the Federal government known to be duplicative of another 

Federal program, a program that was included in any report from 

the Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program 

identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

1 Adam Entous et al., Sessions met with Russian envoy twice last year, encounters he later 

did not disclose, Wash. Post, Mar. 1, 2017. 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings 

The Committee estimates that H. Res. 184 specifically directs to 

be completed no specific rule makings within the meaning of 5 

U.S.C. § 551. 

Performance Goals and Objectives 

The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H. Res. 184 requests 

certain documents from the Trump administration related to communications with the government of Russia. 

Advisory on Earmarks 

In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, H. Res. 184 does not contain any congressional 

earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 

in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of Rule XXI. 

Section-by-Section Analysis 

The following discussion describes the resolution as reported by 

the Committee. 

H. Res. 184, a non-binding resolution of inquiry, requests that 

the President and the Attorney General of the United States transmit certain documents and communications to the House of Representatives related to communications with the government of 

Russia. 

Dissenting Views 

At his confirmation hearing, then-Senator Jefferson Beauregard 

Sessions III testified explicitly that he had not met with Russian 

officials in the past year. In a written response to questions for the 

record, he reiterated his denial. When the Washington Post reported otherwise, Attorney General Sessions admitted to having 

met with the Russian ambassador on two occasions but failed to 

mention a third meeting, clearly documented in the public record.1

He has since recused himself from any pending investigation related to the presidential campaign. A number of critical questions 

remain. Why did the Attorney General give false and misleading 

testimony? Why is his explanation for that testimony incomplete? 

Is his recusal sufficient to address his ongoing relationship with 

President Trump? Why have so many individuals in President 

Trump’s immediate orbit made contact with the Russian government? Why have so many of them initially denied it? 

H. Res. 184 directs the White House and the Department of Justice to transmit information related to the Attorney General’s testimony, the precise scope of his recusal, and contacts between Trump 

campaign officials and the Russian government. The Resolution is 

designed to help our Committee answer those questions. As Rep. 

Hakeem Jeffries (D–NY), the sponsor of this Resolution, explained, 

the ‘‘House is a separate but coequal branch of government. We do 

not work for the Trump administration; we work for the American 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

2 Unofficial Tr. of Markup of H.R. 1667; H.R. 1695; H. Res. 184; and H. Res. 203 before the 

H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong. (Mar. 29, 2017) (statement of Rep. Hakeem Jeffries) 

[hereinafter Markup Tr.]. 3 Id. (statement of Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner). 4 Id. (statement of Chairman Robert Goodlatte). 5 Id. 

people. And the American people deserve to know if the Trump 

team colluded with Putin’s Russia. That includes Jeff Sessions.’’ 2

In complete disregard of these concerns, the Majority refuses to 

conduct routine oversight over the Trump Administration and, instead, offers various excuses for voting against H. Res. 184: the resolution ‘‘does not seem to be very bipartisan;’’ 3 it is ‘‘inappropriate’’ 

for our Committee to seek documents that may have been requested by the intelligence committees and the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI) as they investigate President Trump’s various 

connections to the Russian government;4 and resolutions of inquiry 

are a ‘‘waste of time.’’ 5 Each of these arguments, however, is an abdication of this Committee’s responsibility to oversee the integrity 

of the Executive Branch and, in particular, the United States Department of Justice. 

For these reasons and those discussed below, we respectfully dissent. 

DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND

DESCRIPTION

H. Res. 184 directs the President and the Attorney General to 

transmit to the House, not later than 14 days after the enactment 

of the resolution, copies of any document, record, memo correspondence, or other communication of the White House or the Department of Justice, respectively, that refers or relates to: 

(1) Any meeting or communication between Attorney General 

Sessions and any representative of the Russian government, 

including his meetings with the Russian Ambassador to the 

United States, Sergey I. Kislyak; 

(2) The Attorney General’s testimony before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on January 10, 2017, including but not 

limited to his statement that he ‘‘did not have communications 

with the Russians’’; 

(3) The Attorney General’s written response to questions 

posed by Senator Patrick Leahy (D–VT) in a letter dated January 17, 2017; 

(4) The Attorney General’s letter of March 6, 2017, to the 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary; 

(5) The Attorney General’s preparation for his confirmation 

hearings, with respect to the subject of contact between President Trump’s campaign and any representative of the Russian 

government; 

(6) The Attorney General’s decision to recuse himself from 

investigation related to the 2016 presidential election, but not 

from other matters; 

(7) The application of the federal regulations governing the 

appointment of special counsel by the Department of Justice; 

and 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

6 Christopher M. Davis, Resolutions of Inquiry: An Analysis of Their Use in the House, 1947– 

2011, Cong. Research Service, May 15, 2012 (R40879). 7 Id. at 2. 8 House Rule XIII, clause 7. 

9Davis, supra note 6, at 1. 

(8) Any meeting that occurred between any employee of 

President Trump’s campaign or transition team and any representative of the Russian government. 

The Resolution expressly permits the White House and the Department of Justice to transmit this information in a classified format if necessary. 

BACKGROUND

Under the rules and precedents of the House, a resolution of inquiry is used to obtain information from the executive branch. A 

resolution of inquiry is directed at the President of the United 

States or the head of a Cabinet-level agency, requesting facts within the control of the executive branch.6 As a ‘‘simple resolution,’’ 

designated by ‘‘H. Res.,’’ a resolution of inquiry does not carry the 

force of law. ‘‘Compliance by the executive branch with the House’s 

request is voluntary, resting largely on a sense of comity between 

co-equal branches of government and a recognition of the necessity 

for Congress to be well-informed as it legislates.’’ 7

House Rules afford resolutions of inquiry a privileged parliamentary status. A Member files a resolution of inquiry like any other 

legislation. The resolution is then referred to the proper committee 

of jurisdiction. If the committee does not report the resolution to 

the House within 14 legislative days of its introduction, however, 

a motion to discharge the resolution from committee can be made 

on the House floor.8 In practice, then, even when the Majority opposes a resolution of inquiry, a committee may mark it up and report it—perhaps adversely—to prevent its sponsor from making a 

privileged motion to call up the legislation on the House floor.9

The Resolution is a simple request for information from the 

White House and the Department of Justice. By its nature, a resolution of inquiry cannot draw conclusions about the Attorney General’s testimony or the Administration’s meetings with Russian officials. Our Committee has primary responsibility for oversight of 

the Department of Justice. No aspect of that responsibility is more 

important than ensuring the independence and integrity of the Office of the Attorney General. 

REASONS WHY H. RES. 184 IS NEEDED

Given the events of the past few months, at least three matters 

merit the Committee’s immediate attention. First, Attorney General Sessions has not fully explained his false testimony before the 

Senate Judiciary Committee. Second, the scope of the Attorney 

General’s recusal from matters related to his testimony may not be 

sufficient to address his ongoing conflicts of interest. Finally, the 

Attorney General is one of several individuals involved in the 

Trump campaign to have concealed his meetings with a representative of the Russian government. H. Res. 184 would have helped 

Members to obtain the information they need to investigate these 

issues in earnest as it asks for information about the Attorney General’s meetings with Russian officials, his testimony before the SenVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:23 Apr 04, 2017 Jkt 069008 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR074.XXX HR074

lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

10 Attorney General Nomination, Hearing before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong 

(2017) (exchange between Sen. Al Franken and Sen. Jeff Sessions) (emphasis added). 11 Id. (response to questions for the record from Sen. Patrick Leahy, submitted Jan. 17, 2017). 12 Eli Stokols, Sen. Jeff Sessions endorses Trump, Politico, Feb. 28, 2016. 13Philip Bump, What Jeff Sessions said about Russia, and when, Wash. Post, Mar. 2, 2017. 

ate Judiciary Committee, his later ‘‘clarification’’ of that testimony, 

and his preparation for his confirmation hearings with respect to 

reports of communications between the Trump campaign and the 

Russian government. This information is critical to understanding 

why the Attorney General twice gave false testimony, and whether 

his attempt to correct that false testimony is adequate. 

I. Attorney General Sessions Failed To Provide an Adequate 

Explanation for His False Testimony Before the Senate 

Judiciary Committee. 

On January 10, 2017, at the Attorney General’s confirmation 

hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Al 

Franken (D–MN) engaged in an exchange with then-Senator Sessions: 

Franken: CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect 

last week that included information that, quote, ‘‘Russian 

operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.’’ The documents also allegedly say, quote, ‘‘There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump’s surrogates and 

intermediaries for the Russian government.’’ 

Now, again, I’m telling you this as it’s coming out, so you 

know. But if it’s true, it’s obviously extremely serious and if 

there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump 

campaign communicated with the Russian government in the 

course of this campaign, what will you do? 

Sessions: I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been 

called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did 

not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to 

comment on it.10

Attorney General Sessions later responded to several questions 

for the record posed by Senator Patrick Leahy. With respect to any 

contact with the Russian government, the Attorney General’s response was categorical: 

Several of the President-Elect’s nominees or senior advisers 

have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 

election, either before or after election day? 

RESPONSE: No.11

Both of these statements are demonstrably false. 

Then-Senator Jeff Sessions formally endorsed Donald Trump for 

president on February 28, 2016.12 On March 3, 2016, Mr. Trump 

named Senator Sessions as chairman of his campaign’s national security advisory committee.13 From that point forward, the Attorney 

General was a senior adviser to and surrogate for the Trump campaign. 

On July 18, 2016, on the first day of the Republican National 

Convention, the Heritage Foundation hosted a panel conversation 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

14 Victor Ashe, Delegate diary: Side events more interesting than the convention, Knoxville 

News Sentinel, July 19, 2016. 15 Adam Entous et al., Sessions met with Russian envoy twice last year, encounters he later 

did not disclose, Wash. Post, Mar. 1, 2017. 16 Id. 17 Aaron Blake, Transcript of Jeff Sessions’ recusal news conference, annotated, Wash. Post, 

Mar. 2, 2017. 18See, e.g., Ellen Nakashima, Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition 

research on Trump, Wash. Post, June 14, 2016. 19 Markup Tr. (statement of Rep. Pramilla Jayapal). 20 Aaron Blake, Transcript of Jeff Sessions’ recusal news conference, annotated, Wash. Post, 

Mar. 2, 2017. 21 Adam Entous et al., Sessions met with Russian envoy twice last year, encounters he later 

did not disclose, Wash. Post, Mar. 1, 2017. 22 Id. 

on European relations. One delegate wrote: ‘‘Much of the discussion 

focused on Russia’s incursions into Ukraine and Georgia,’’ and 

‘‘[s]everal ambassadors asked for names of people who might impact foreign policy under Trump.’’ 14 At the conclusion of this event, 

contrary to his testimony, Attorney General Sessions met and 

spoke with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.15

On September 8, 2016, the Attorney General met again with Ambassador Kislyak in his Senate office.16 According to the Attorney 

General, he and the Ambassador discussed terrorism and Russian 

activity in Ukraine, but no ‘‘specific political discussions.’’ 17 By 

September 2016, reports that Russian hackers had gained access to 

servers at the Democratic National Committee had been in the 

news for months.18 However, according to his own account, Attorney General Sessions made no mention of this Russian operation 

to the Russian ambassador. 

The Attorney General testified—in person and in writing—that 

he had made no contacts with Russian officials during the course 

of the campaign. That testimony was clearly false. His later attempts to reconcile his testimony to the facts are equally puzzling. 

As Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D–WA) pointed out, ‘‘as a lawyer and a 

long-term Member of Congress who has participated in many confirmation hearings, Jeff Sessions should know better.’’ 19

In several statements after the Washington Post reported on his 

two meetings with Ambassador Kislyak, the Attorney General argued: ‘‘I never had meetings with Russian operatives or Russian 

intermediaries about the Trump campaign.’’ 20 That phrasing does 

not reflect the testimony given by the Attorney General at his confirmation hearing: ‘‘I did not have communications with the Russians.’’ 

Later, a spokesperson for the Trump Administration claimed 

that the Attorney General was asked ‘‘about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign—not about meetings he 

took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee.’’ 21 The Washington Post contacted the other 26 members of 

the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2016. Of the 20 who responded, none had met with the Russian Ambassador.22 The Attorney General was both associated with the Trump campaign and 

aware of the Russian government’s efforts to influence the election 

during both of the meetings he later acknowledged. It is not clear 

how his also being a sitting Senator would give the Attorney General license to give the unqualified impression that he ‘‘did not 

have communications with the Russians.’’ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

23Letter from U.S. Attorney General Jefferson Sessions to Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), 

Chairman, S. Comm. on the Judiciary, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–CA), Ranking Member, 

S. Comm. on the Judiciary (Mar. 6, 2017). 24 Id. 25Transcript: Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy Speech, N.Y. Times, Apr. 27, 2016. 26Greg Miller et al., National security adviser Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador, despite denials, officials say, Wash. Post, Feb. 9, 2017. 27 Jacob Heilbrunn, Why I Hosted Trump’s Foreign Policy Speech, Politico, Apr. 27, 2017. 28Markup Tr. (statement of Chairman Bob Goodlatte). 

On March 6, 2017, Attorney General Sessions wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee to supplement his testimony. ‘‘My answer 

was correct. . . . I was surprised by the allegations in [Senator 

Franken’s] question, which I had not heard before.’’ 23 It strains belief to suggest that a U.S. Senator, active in the campaign and 

nominated to be Attorney General, first learned of widely reported 

allegations of contact between the Trump campaign and the Russian government while sitting at his confirmation hearing. 

The Attorney General’s supplemental testimony discloses two 

meetings with the Russian ambassador—at the convention in July 

2016 and in his office in September 2016.24 It does not, however, 

acknowledge the possibility of a third meeting with Ambassador 

Kislyak. On April 27, 2016, President Trump gave a foreign policy 

speech at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC, stating, ‘‘I believe an easing of tensions, and improved relations with Russia— 

from a position of strength only—is possible, absolutely possible. 

Common sense says this cycle, this horrible cycle of hostility must 

end and ideally will end soon. Good for both countries.’’ 25 Ambassador Kislyak sat in the front row for that speech.26 The Attorney 

General was also in attendance. According to one account, ‘‘at a reception in the Senate Room of the Mayflower, a number of politicians and Trump advisers, such as Senator Jeff Sessions and ambassadors, congregated before the event.’’ 27 Neither the Attorney 

General’s initial testimony nor his supplementary statement account for any conversation that may have taken place at this April 

meeting. 

In the House of Representatives, our Committee has primary responsibility for overseeing the Department of Justice. It is incumbent on the Committee to seek the information necessary to fill the 

gaps in the Attorney General’s account. H. Res. 184 addresses several lingering questions: How could the Attorney General possibly 

have been surprised that the topic of Russia would come up at his 

confirmation hearing? Why did he give the impression that he had 

never met with the Russian Ambassador? Why did it take three 

weeks to even attempt to correct the record? Is the record now complete, given the possibility of additional meetings between the Attorney General and the Russian Ambassador? 

Although Chairman Goodlatte asserts that ‘‘a resolution of inquiry is an inappropriate and really ineffective method for conducting effective oversight,’’ 28 we cannot defer our oversight responsibilities to any other agency or congressional committee. By 

voting to report H. Res. 184 unfavorably, the Majority has blocked 

the measure from reaching the House floor and signaled an unwillingness to even ask about the Attorney General’s false testimony. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

29 Attorney General Sessions Statement on Recusal, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, Mar. 2, 2017. 30 Id. 31 28 C.F.R. § 45.2(a) (2016). 32 Id. § 45.1(c)(1). 33Steven Lee Myers & Andrew E. Kramer, How Paul Manafort Wielded Power in Ukraine Before Advising Donald Trump, N.Y. Times, July 31, 2016. 34 Andrew E. Kramer et al., Secret Leger in Ukraine Lists Cash for Donald Trump’s Campaign 

Chief, N.Y. Times, Aug. 14, 2016. 

II. The Attorney General’s recusal from matters related to 

the 2016 campaign is, at best, incomplete. 

H. Res. 184 also requests information related to the Attorney 

General’s decision to recuse himself from any matter related to the 

Trump campaign, as well as the Administration’s analysis of the 

regulations governing the appointment of special counsel. This information will help the Committee assess the particular phrasing 

of the Attorney General’s recusal, and the extent to which he plans 

to be involved in other ongoing investigations of President Trump. 

Attorney General Sessions has recused himself ‘‘from any existing or future investigations of any matters in any way related to 

the campaigns for President of the United States.’’ 29 He has ‘‘taken 

no actions regarding any such matters,’’ and his recusal ‘‘should not 

be interpreted as confirmation of the existence of any investigation 

or suggestive of the scope of any such investigation.’’ 30

Federal regulations provide that no employee of the Department 

of Justice, including the Attorney General: 

shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if 

he has a personal or political relationship with: 

(1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the 

conduct of the investigation or prosecution; or 

(2) Any person or organization which he knows a specific and 

substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.31

The regulations define ‘‘political relationship’’ as ‘‘a close identification with an elected official . . . arising from service as a principal adviser thereto or principal official thereof.’’ 32

Attorney General Sessions clearly has a ‘‘political relationship’’ 

with President Trump. He therefore should be disqualified from 

any investigation or prosecution in which President Trump is ‘‘substantially involved’’ or in which the President has ‘‘a specific and 

substantial interest.’’ Out of the many possible investigations of direct interest to President Trump, it is not clear why the Attorney 

General chose to limit his recusal solely to matters ‘‘related to the 

campaigns for President of the United States.’’ 

The recusal does not appear to reach matters that pre-date the 

campaign. For example, the Department apparently has been investigating the business dealings of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort long before he became manager of the Trump 

campaign.33 According to reports, this investigation centers on Mr. 

Manafort’s work for former Ukrainian President Viktor 

Yanukovych.34 This matter is not ‘‘related to the campaigns for 

President,’’ but President Trump has a ‘‘specific and substantial interest’’ in any decision to charge his one-time campaign manager 

with a federal crime. 

The recusal also may not reach events that occurred after the 

campaign had ended. Attorney General Sessions concedes that the 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

35Letter from U.S. Attorney General Jefferson Sessions to Sen. Charles Grassley, Chairman, 

S. Comm. on the Judiciary, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member, S. Comm. on the Judiciary, Mar. 6, 2017. 36See Adam Entous et al., Justice Department warned White House that Flynn could be vulnerable to Russian blackmail, officials say, Wash. Post, Feb. 13, 2017. 37See Greg Miller et al., National security adviser Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador, despite denials, officials say, Wash. Post, Feb. 9, 2017. 38See Richard C. Paddock et al., Potential Conflicts Around the Globe for Trump, the Businessman President, N.Y. Times, Nov. 26, 2016. 39Max Boot, Trump’s Opposition Research Firm: Russia’s Intelligence Agencies, L.A. Times, 

July 25, 2016. 40Trump: Dimon’s Woes & Zuckerberg’s Prenuptial, CNBC, broadcast May 15, 2012. 41 Adam Davidson, Donald Trump’s Worst Deal, New Yorker, Mar. 13, 2017. 42 26 C.F.R. § 600.1 (2012). 43Melanie Mason, GOP Rep. Darrell Issa tells Bill Maher a special prosecutor should investigate Russian election interference, L.A. Times, Feb. 24, 2017. 

scope of his recusal includes ‘‘Russian contacts with the Trump 

transition team and administration.’’ 35 It is less clear that his 

recusal extends to any collateral matters. For example, the Attorney General is presumably recused from any investigation into 

former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s discussions with 

the Russian Ambassador.36 But any investigation into Mr. Flynn’s 

decision to lie about those discussions—including, possibly, to any 

federal investigators who may have interviewed him—is predicated 

on events that occurred entirely after ‘‘the campaigns for President’’ had concluded.37

The recusal certainly does not reach other widely-reported matters that may be pending at the Department of Justice. President 

Trump has potentially unorthodox business relationships in some 

of the most corrupt countries in the world.38 Although the President denies having any business dealings in Russia, he has sought 

and received funding from Russian oligarchs, ‘‘especially after most 

American banks stopped lending to him following his multiple 

bankruptcies.’’ 39 He has called the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 

a ‘‘horrible law’’ that ‘‘puts us at a huge disadvantage.’’ 40 In Azerbaijan, the President and his family worked with a notoriously corrupt Minister of Transportation on a building project that appears 

to have been a front for Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.41 If these 

cases, or anything like them, appear before the Department of Justice, Attorney General Sessions remains the senior official in 

charge—even though he has a direct political relationship with the 

target of the investigation. 

Given the substantial likelihood that President Trump and his 

associates have been, and will continue to be, the subject of investigation by the Department of Justice, one option for Attorney General Sessions is to appoint a special counsel to handle the matter. 

Federal regulations permit the Attorney General to do so ‘‘when he 

or she determines that a criminal investigation is warranted’’ and 

that ‘‘investigation or prosecution . . . would present a conflict of 

interest for the Department.’’ 42 H. Res. 184 directs the Attorney 

General to transmit his analysis of these regulations to the 

House—so that Members can examine what steps he has taken, if 

any, to avoid an ongoing conflict of interest. Rep. Darrell Issa (R– 

CA) was one of the first Republicans to suggest that the Attorney 

General is ‘‘going to have to use the special prosecutor statute.’’ 43

Unfortunately, the Majority has shown little interest in assessing 

whether the current scope of the Attorney General’s recusal is appropriate, or whether the appointment of a special counsel is in 

order. By voting to report H. Res. 184 unfavorably and block the 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

44Kailani Koenig, Rep. Schiff: ‘‘Circumstantial Evidence of Collusion’’ Between Trump Campaign, Russia, NBC News, Mar. 19, 2017. 45Markup Tr. (statement of Rep. Eric Swalwell). 46 Adam Entous et al., Justice Department warned White House that Flynn could be vulnerable 

to Russian blackmail, officials say, Wash. Post, Feb. 13, 2017. 47Greg Miller et al., National security adviser Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador, despite denials, officials say, Wash. Post, Feb. 9, 2017. 

measure from reaching the House floor, the Majority has abandoned its responsibility to conduct oversight of the Department of 

Justice, and to follow the facts wherever they may lead us. 

III. Attorney General Sessions is one of several associates of 

President Trump to have concealed his contacts with 

the Russian government. 

Although the majority of H. Res. 184 is directed at the Attorney 

General’s false testimony and his subsequent recusal, the resolution also requests information about any meeting that occurred between any employee of President Trump’s campaign or transition 

team and any representative of the Russian government. 

Rep. Adam Schiff (D–CA), Ranking Member of the House Permanent Committee on Intelligence and a leader of that Committee’s 

investigation into the President’s connections to the Russian government, put the problem succinctly: ‘‘At the outset of the investigation, there was circumstantial evidence of collusion. There was 

direct evidence, I think, of deception.’’ 44

At the markup of H. Res. 184, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D–CA) also 

helped to put the Attorney General’s false testimony into context: 

[A]s members of the Judiciary Committee, we have an 

opportunity right now to do a small piece of this investigation to understand why, when asked under oath, the Attorney General misled his Senate confirmation panel about 

prior contacts with Russia. And perhaps just one person in 

the Administration misleading about prior contacts with 

Russia could be excused with an innocent explanation. I 

think we are all willing to accept that. However, when you 

put this in context you do not see coincidences; you see a 

pattern of deception. . . . 

And what this Committee should seek to do is to understand what does that pattern mean.45

Attorney General Sessions was just one of the President’s associates to have hidden or lied about his contacts with Russian officials. H. Res. 184 asks about some of them by name. 

On December 29, 2016, the same day that President Obama imposed sanctions on certain Russian officials in response to Russian 

interference in the presidential campaign, former National Security 

Advisor Michael Flynn spoke with the Russian ambassador to the 

United States about lifting those sanctions once Donald Trump 

took office.46 In public—and apparently also in private conversations with Vice President Mike Pence—Mr. Flynn flatly denied 

having any such discussions. On February 9, 2017, the Washington 

Post reported that Mr. Flynn had, in fact, discussed lifting sanctions in his conversations with the Russian ambassador.47 Three 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

48Maggie Haberman et al., Michael Flynn Resigns as National Security Adviser, N.Y. Times, 

Feb. 13, 2017. 49 Evan Osnos et al., Trump, Putin, and the New Cold War, New Yorker, Feb. 26, 2017. 50Michael S. Schmidt, Kushner and Flynn Met With Russian Envoy in December, White House 

Says, N.Y. Times, Mar. 2, 2017. 51 Jo Becker et al., Senate Committee to Question Jared Kushner Over Meetings With Russians, 

N.Y. Times, Mar. 27, 2017. 52Michael Isikoff, U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump advisor and Kremlin, Yahoo! 

News, Sept. 24, 2016. 53Former Trump adviser says he had no Russian meetings in the past year, PBS News Hour, 

Feb. 15, 2017. 54Steve Reilly, Exclusive: Two other Trump advisers also spoke with Russian envoy during 

GOP convention, USA Today, Mar. 2, 2017. 55 ‘‘I am not going to deny that I talked to him. I will say I never met him anywhere outside 

of Cleveland.’’ All in with Chris Hayes, MSNBC, broadcast Mar. 2, 2017 (interview with Carter 

Page). 56 Ben Schreckinger & Julia Ioffe, Lobbyist advised Trump campaign while promoting Russian 

pipeline, Politico, Oct. 7, 2016. 57 Id. 58 Amber Philips, Paul Manafort’s complicated ties to Ukraine, explained, Wash. Post, Aug. 19, 

2016. 59 Josh Rogin, Trump campaign guts GOP’s anti-Russia stance on Ukraine, Wash. Post, July 

18, 2016. 

weeks after the White House learned of this duplicity, Mr. Flynn 

resigned.48

Jared Kushner—President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser—participated in a meeting with Ambassador Kislyak in December.49 It may be entirely proper for a senior transition team official to meet with a foreign leader, but Mr. Flynn’s participation 

in that meeting was not disclosed until after he resigned as National Security Adviser.50 The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence recently asked to question Mr. Kushner about a number of 

other previously undisclosed meetings with Russian officials. At 

least one such meeting included a conversation with the head of a 

Russian bank that has been subject to U.S. sanctions since Russia’s 

invasion of Crimea and Ukraine.51

According to reports, the FBI has questioned Carter Page, a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign, for his frequent trips 

to Moscow and alleged contacts with Russian officials subject to 

U.S. sanctions.52 In an interview on February 15, 2017, Mr. Page 

claimed that he had participated in ‘‘no meetings’’ with Russian officials in the past year.53 On March 2, 2017, USA Today reported 

that both Mr. Page and J.D. Gordon, director of the national security advisory committee for the Trump campaign, met with the 

Russian ambassador at the Republican National Convention in 

July 2016.54 Mr. Page admitted his earlier misstatement in an 

interview broadcast later that evening.55

Richard Burt, a former U.S. Ambassador to Germany and a lobbyist for interests controlled by the Russian government, helped to 

write President Trump’s first foreign policy speech even as he was 

earning hundreds of thousands of dollars to build a gas pipeline for 

Russian gas giant Gazprom.56 As the chairman of the Trump campaign’s national security advisory committee, then-Senator Jeff 

Sessions invited Mr. Burt ‘‘to discuss issues of national security 

and foreign policy, and wrote white papers for Sessions on the 

same subjects.’’ 57

Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort once worked as 

a pro-Kremlin political consultant in Ukraine.58 He reportedly 

oversaw the softening of the Republican National Committee’s platform on Russia.59 While working for the Trump campaign, he appears to have been the target of a blackmail attempt by a UkrainVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:23 Apr 04, 2017 Jkt 069008 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR074.XXX HR074

lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

60Kenneth P. Vogel et al., Manafort faced blackmail attempt, hacks suggest, Politico, Feb. 23, 

2016. 61Ken Dilanian et al., FBI Making Inquiry into Ex-Trump Campaign Manager’s Foreign Ties, 

NBC News, Nov. 1, 2016. 62 Ilya Marritz & Andrea Bernstein, Paul Manafort’s Puzzling New York Real Estate Purchases, WNYC News, Mar. 28, 2017. 63 Aggelos Petropoulos & Richard Engel, Manafort-Linked Accounts on Cyprus Raised Red 

Flag, NBC News, Mar. 29, 2017. 64 Jeff Horwitz & Chad Day, AP Exclusive: Before Trump job, Manafort worked to aid Putin, 

Assoc. Press, Mar. 22, 2017. 65Michael S. Schmidt, Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry into Trump Associates, N.Y. Times, Jan. 29, 2017. 66 Alexa Ard, Donald Trump ally Roger Stone admits ‘‘back-channel’’ tie to WikiLeaks, 

McClatchy, Oct. 12, 2016. 67Marina Fang, Former Trump Advisor Roger Stone Admits Collusion with WikiLeaks, Then 

Deletes It, Huffington Post, Mar. 5, 2017. 68Megan Twohey and Scott Shane, A Back-Channel Plan for Ukraine and Russia, Courtesy 

of Trump Associates, N.Y. Times, Feb. 19, 2017. 69 Julia Ioffe, The Mystery of the Ukraine Peace Plan, The Atlantic, Feb. 20, 2017. 70 Hunter Walker, Trump attorney Michael Cohen: I have no Russian Kremlin connections, 

Yahoo! News, Jan. 11, 2017. 71 Attorney General Nomination, hearing before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, Jan. 10, 2017 

(exchange between Sen. Al Franken and Sen. Jeff Sessions). 

ian politician—who claimed to have ‘‘bulletproof’’ evidence related 

to certain financial arrangements between Mr. Manafort and 

Ukraine’s former president, pro-Russian strongman Viktor 

Yanukovych.60 The FBI has been investigating his business dealings in Russia and Ukraine for some time.61 Other recent reporting 

has raised questions about Mr. Manafort’s use of shell corporations 

to purchase real estate in New York City,62 money laundering 

through Cypriot banks,63 and a secret deal with one Russian oligarch to influence politics in the United States to ‘‘greatly benefit 

the Putin government.’’ 64

Trump campaign advisor Roger Stone has been swept into similar investigations.65 During the campaign, he bragged about ‘‘backchannel’’ communications with WikiLeaks and appeared to know 

that WikiLeaks would publish emails from Clinton Campaign 

chairman John Podesta—emails exfiltrated from the Democratic 

National Committee by Russian state actors—months before those 

emails became public.66 On March 4, 2017, Mr. Stone again 

claimed a ‘‘perfectly legal back channel’’ to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange—and then deleted the statement from Twitter.67

Michael D. Cohen, President Trump’s private attorney, is working to bring ‘‘peace’’ to Ukraine through a Ukrainian lawmaker associated with Paul Manafort.68 The peace plan, which Mr. Cohen 

reportedly hand-delivered to Mr. Flynn in the days before his resignation, appears to turn on lifting sanctions on the Russian government and recognizing Crimea as part of Russia—both to the obvious gain of Vladimir Putin.69 Mr. Cohen has denied making a 

separate trip to the Czech Republic during the campaign to meet 

with Russian officials.70

Finally, there remain unanswered questions about the Attorney 

General’s direct contacts with the Russian government. At his confirmation hearings, he testified: ‘‘I did not have communications 

with the Russians.’’ 71 That testimony was, at best, inaccurate. Steven Hall, a former head of Russia operations at the Central Intelligence Agency, notes that the Russian government would have incentive to cultivate a relationship with Senator Sessions, because 

of his role on key Senate committees and as an early adviser to the 

President. ‘‘The fact that he had already placed himself at least 

ideologically behind Trump would have been an added bonus for 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

72 Adam Entous, et al., Sessions met with Russian envoy twice last year, encounters he later 

did not disclose, Wash. Post, Mar. 1, 2017. 73 Id. 74Markup Tr. (statement of Rep. Hakeem Jeffries). 

Kislyak.’’ 72 Michael McFaul, former U.S. ambassador to Russia, 

did not find it unusual for the Attorney General to have met with 

Ambassador Kislyak. ‘‘The weird part is to conceal it. That was at 

the height of all the discussions of what Russia was doing during 

the election.’’ 73

Each of the Trump campaign officials named in H. Res. 184 appears to have had contact with the Russian government. Many of 

these officials served as national security advisors to the campaign—and Attorney General Sessions served the campaign as 

chair of its national security advisory committee. Whether or not 

he engaged in any wrongdoing, the Attorney General sat in the 

center of a group of individuals who met with Russian officials and 

then attempted to obscure those meetings. 

The Committee has an obligation to investigate this pattern of 

behavior. In particular, we have an obligation to investigate how 

that pattern may implicate the sitting Attorney General of the 

United States. By voting to report H. Res. 184 unfavorably and 

block it from consideration by the full House, the Majority chooses 

to ignore that obligation. 

CONCLUSION

At the markup of H. Res. 184, Rep. Jeffries raised a key question 

about an unexplained shift in the Attorney General’s outlook: 

Before hooking up with Donald Trump, then-Senator 

Sessions was quite clear on the systematic fraud and corruption in Putin’s Russia. But something changed after 

joining the Trump team. And in March of last year, days 

after his official endorsement of Donald Trump, he said, ‘‘I 

think an argument can be made that there is no reason for 

the U.S. and Russia to be at this loggerheads. We ought 

to be able to break that logjam.’’ 

Why did Jeff Sessions suddenly forget that Putin’s brutal and corrupt regime undermines America’s democratic 

values? The American people deserve to know.74

By itself, there is nothing untoward about a shift in a sitting 

Senator’s foreign policy. In isolation and after a good faith attempt 

at correction, a case of mistaken testimony before a congressional 

committee would be little cause for concern. Taken all together, 

however, the evidence suggests that the Attorney General and his 

associates from the Trump campaign have engaged in a pattern of 

behavior that raises too many questions to ignore. 

We are disappointed, but not surprised, that the Majority refuses 

to ask these critical questions of the Department of Justice and the 

White House. We will continue to press the Trump Administration 

for answers, with or without the Majority. 

Accordingly, we strongly support H. Res. 184 and respectfully 

dissent from the Majority’s motion to report it unfavorably. 

MR. CONYERS, JR. 

MR. NADLER. 

MS. LOFGREN. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
19 

MS. JACKSON LEE. MR. COHEN. MR. JOHNSON, JR. MR. DEUTCH. MR. GUTIE ́ RREZ. MS. BASS. MR. RICHMOND. MR. JEFFRIES. MR. CICILLINE. MR. SWALWELL. MR. LIEU. MS. JAYAPAL. 

MR. RASKIN. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS