89–008 

116TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 116–33 

RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY REQUESTING THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTING 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO TRANSMIT, RESPECTIVELY, CERTAIN DOCUMENTS TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RELATING TO THE ACTIONS OF FORMER FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ACTING DIRECTOR ANDREW MCCABE 

APRIL 4, 2019.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. NADLER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H. Res. 243] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the resolution (H. Res. 243) of inquiry requesting the President and directing the Attorney General to transmit, respectively, certain documents to the House of Representatives relating to the actions of 

former Federal Bureau of Investigation Acting Director Andrew 

McCabe, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with 

an amendment and recommend that the resolution as amended be 

agreed to. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

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

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 3 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 6 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 6 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 6 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 8 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................................................................ 8 

Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 8 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 8 

Advisory on Earmarks ............................................................................................. 8 

Section-by-Section Analysis .................................................................................... 8 

Additional Views ...................................................................................................... 9 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the following: 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
2 

1 Although H. Res. 243’s long title states the Resolution requests the President to transmit 

certain documents to the House relating to the actions of former FBI Acting Director McCabe, 

the Resolution itself does not appear to incorporate this request. 2 In pertinent part, the 25th Amendment provides: 

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit 

to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and 

duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties 

of the office as Acting President. 

U.S. Const. amend. XXV, § 4. 

That the Attorney General of the United States is directed to transmit, to the House 

of Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution, copies of any document, record, audio recording, memorandum, correspondence, or other communication in his possession, or any portion thereof, that refers 

or relates to the following: 

(1) Any meetings or discussions between or among Deputy Attorney General 

Rod J. Rosenstein and former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Acting Director Andrew McCabe, regarding conversations with the President, including 

but not limited to— 

(A) any reference concerning wearing a recording device or preparing in 

any way to record the President; and 

(B) any reference concerning the invocation of the 25th Amendment of the 

U.S. Constitution to remove the President from office. 

(2) Any meetings or discussions between or among FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe and others at the FBI referring or relating to commencing or continuing an obstruction of justice or counterintelligence investigation of the 

President. 

Purpose and Summary 

H. Res. 243, as ordered reported, is a non-binding resolution of 

inquiry directing Attorney General William Barr to transmit to the 

House of Representatives certain documents and materials pertaining to: (1) meetings or discussions between Deputy Attorney 

General Rod J. Rosenstein and former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Acting Director Andrew McCabe regarding certain conversations with President Donald Trump; and (2) any meetings or 

discussions between or among FBI Acting Director McCabe and 

others at the FBI regarding certain matters.1 Specifically, it directs 

Attorney General Barr to transmit, not later than 14 days after the 

Resolution is adopted by the House, any such documents and materials that refer or relate to: 

(1) Any meetings or discussions between or among Deputy 

Attorney General Rosenstein and former FBI Acting Director 

McCabe, regarding conversations with the President, including 

but not limited to— 

(A) any reference concerning wearing a recording device 

or preparing in any way to record the President; and 

(B) any reference concerning the invocation of the 25th 

Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to remove the President from office.2

(2) Any meetings or discussions between or among FBI Acting Director McCabe and others at the FBI referring or relating to commencing or continuing an obstruction of justice or 

counterintelligence investigation of the President. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
3 

3Wm. Holmes Brown et al., House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents, and Procedures 

of the House ch. 49, sec. 6, at 834 (2017) [hereinafter House Practice]. 4 7 Deschler’s Precedents of the United States House of Representatives, H. Doc. No. 94–661, 

94th Cong., 2d Sess., ch. 24, § 8 (1994). 5 A resolution that seeks more than factual information does not enjoy privileged status. 

House Practice, at 833–34. 6 Christopher M. Davis, Resolutions of Inquiry: An Analysis of Their Use in the House, 1947– 

2017, Cong. Res. Serv. R40879, at i (Nov. 9, 2017). 7 Id. 8 Id. 

Background and Need for the Legislation 

BACKGROUND

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.3

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

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.’’ 4 Such resolutions must ask for facts, documents, or specific information; they may not be used to request an opinion or require an investigation.5 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 2017, 313 resolutions of inquiry 

were introduced in the House.6 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.’’ 7 CRS further found 

that ‘‘in recent Congresses, such resolutions have overwhelmingly 

become a tool of the minority party in the House.’’ 8

A committee has a number of choices after a resolution of inquiry 

is referred to it. It may vote on the resolution 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. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
4 

9 E-mail from Cong. Res. Serv. (Mar. 27, 2019) (on file with H. Comm. on the Judiciary Democratic staff). 10 Id. 11 Adam Goldman & Michael S. Schmidt, Rod Rosenstein Suggested Secretly Recording Trump 

and Discussed 25th Amendment, N.Y. Times, Sept. 22, 2018, at A1, https://www.nytimes.com/ 

2018/09/21/us/politics/rod-rosenstein-wear-wire-25th-amendment.html. 12 Id. 13 Id. 14 Id. 15 Id. 

Over the period of 1947 to the present, 51 resolutions of inquiry 

(including H. Res. 243) were referred to the Judiciary Committee, 

according to CRS.9 Of these, only five (including H. Res. 243) were 

reported favorably, while 23 were ordered adversely, 22 were not 

reported, and one was reported without recommendation.10

NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

H. Res. 243 directs the Department of Justice to transmit to the 

House of Representatives certain materials that refer or relate to 

meetings and discussions that may have occurred between or 

among Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Acting Director Andrew McCabe 

regarding conversations with President Donald Trump, including 

discussions concerning wearing a recording device or preparing in 

any way to record the President, and invoking the 25th Amendment to remove him from office. The Resolution also seeks records 

related to discussions between or among Mr. McCabe and others at 

the FBI about launching or continuing an obstruction of justice or 

counterintelligence investigation of the President. 

In essence, this Resolution seeks records relating to concerns expressed at the very highest levels of the Department of Justice and 

the FBI about President Trump’s allegedly illegal conduct, and his 

fitness for office. It also seeks records about the extraordinary 

measures that these leaders may have contemplated in view of 

these concerns. 

Congress and the American people would benefit from learning 

more about whether, in fact, the discussions referred to in this resolution occurred and, if so, what prompted such alarm among Mr. 

Rosenstein and Mr. McCabe, as well as other FBI officials, that 

they would consider these unprecedented actions. 

According to media reports, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein 

became alarmed when the President fired James Comey as FBI Director after it was revealed that the FBI was investigating alleged 

contacts between individuals associated with the Trump campaign 

and the Russian government.11 Other events that reportedly troubled Mr. Rosenstein include President Trump’s revealing classified 

intelligence to Russian officials in the Oval Office,12 news that the 

President had asked Mr. Comey to end an investigation into former 

National Security Advisor Michael Flynn,13 and reports that the 

President sought a loyalty pledge from Mr. Comey.14

In discussions with various Department of Justice (DOJ) officials, 

including Mr. McCabe, Mr. Rosenstein is reported to have suggested secretly recording President Trump and invoking the 25th 

Amendment to remove the President from office ‘‘to expose the 

chaos consuming the administration.’’ 15 Mr. Rosenstein has denied 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
5 

16Devlin Barrett & Matt Zapotosky, McCabe memos say Rosenstein considered secretly recording Trump, Wash. Post, Sept. 21, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/ 

mccabe-memos-say-rosenstein-considered-secretly-recording-trump/2018/09/21/f4aa9a62-bdca11e8-8792-78719177250f_story.html?utm_term=.f6d8d016536f. 17Matt Zapotosky, McCabe says Rosenstein was ‘thinking off the top of his head’ when he 

brought up 25th Amendment, Wash. Post, Feb. 21, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/ 

national-security/mccabe-says-rosenstein-was-thinking-off-the-top-of-his-head-when-he-broughtup-25th-amendment/2019/02/21/7f4c150a-35f4-11e9-af5bb51b7ff322e9_story.html?utm_term=.805672342a9d. 18 Id. 19 Adam Goldman, Michael S. Schmidt & Nicholas Fandos, F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether 

Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia, N.Y. Times, Jan. 11, 2019, https:// 

www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/us/politics/fbi-trump-russia-inquiry.html. 20 Id. 21 Id. 22Scott Pelley, Andrew McCabe: The Full 60 Minutes Interview, 60 Minutes, Feb. 17, 2019, 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andrew-mccabe-interview-former-acting-fbi-director-presidenttrump-investigation-james-comey-during-russia-investigation-60-minutes/. 23 Id. 24 Id. 25 Id. 

these conversations ever occurred,16 but Mr. McCabe’s contemporaneous notes describe these discussions,17 although he later 

downplayed how serious Mr. Rosenstein was at the time.18 H. Res. 

243 seeks any information the DOJ possesses regarding these discussions. 

H. Res. 243 also seeks information regarding Mr. McCabe’s decisions to launch and continue an obstruction of justice and a counterintelligence investigation of President Trump. According to Mr. 

McCabe, he initiated these investigations into President Trump 

after Mr. Comey’s dismissal, out of concern that the President was 

working on behalf of Russia against American interests. He was 

also concerned that the President fired Mr. Comey as a means of 

obstructing justice.19

In particular, Mr. McCabe was alarmed by President Trump’s repeated efforts to mention the Russia investigation in the letter he 

sent to Mr. Comey firing him as FBI Director.20 He was also troubled by an interview the President gave to NBC News in which he 

told Lester Holt that he fired Mr. Comey because of the Russia investigation.21

In an interview with 60 Minutes, Mr. McCabe discussed his decision to open the investigations into whether Mr. Trump fired Mr. 

Comey to hinder the investigation into Russian interference with 

the 2016 election and, if so, whether Mr. Trump was acting on behalf of the Russian government.22 He explained, ‘‘I was speaking 

to the man who had just run for the presidency and won the election for the presidency and who might have done so with the aid 

of the government of Russia, our most formidable adversary on the 

world stage. And that was something that troubled me greatly.’’ 23

He further explained that he opened the investigations in order 

to protect the Russia investigation, stating, ‘‘I was very concerned 

that I was able to put the Russia case on absolutely solid ground 

in an indelible fashion that were I removed quickly or reassigned 

or fired that the case could not be closed or vanish in the night 

without a trace.’’ 24 When asked whether he opened the investigations ‘‘because you feared that they would be made to go away,’’ 

Mr. McCabe answered, ‘‘That’s exactly right.’’ 25

According to Mr. McCabe, ‘‘if the president committed obstruction of justice, fired the director of the of the FBI to negatively impact or to shut down our investigation of Russia’s malign activity 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
6 

26 Id. 27 Id. 28 Caitlin Oprysko, McCabe says he opened investigations into Trump to put Russia probe ‘on 

solid ground’, Politico, Feb. 14, 2019, https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/14/fbi-investigationtrump-russia-1169846. 

and possibly in support of his campaign, as a counterintelligence 

investigator you have to ask yourself, ‘Why would a president of 

the United States do that?’ So all those same sorts of facts cause 

us to wonder is there an inappropriate relationship, a connection 

between this president and our most fearsome enemy, the government of Russia?’’ 26 When asked, ‘‘Are you saying that the president 

is in league with the Russians?’’ he replied, ‘‘I’m saying that the 

FBI had reason to investigate that.’’ 27

President Trump has relentlessly attacked Mr. McCabe, accusing 

him of bias because of his wife’s political ties, and because of his 

role in the FBI’s investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server.28 To the extent that questions 

remain about the origin of the investigations into President 

Trump’s conduct-conduct that so deeply disturbed senior law enforcement officials that they opened a counterintelligence investigation and an obstruction of justice investigation into his actions, and 

they may have discussed secretly recording the President and seeking his removal from office under the 25th Amendment—this Resolution would help Congress determine whether DOJ officials acted 

properly with regard to investigating the President, and would provide a better understanding of the events that led them to take 

such actions. 

Hearings 

The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H. Res. 243. 

Committee Consideration 

On March 26, 2019, the Committee met in open session and ordered H. Res. 243 favorably reported, with an amendment, by a roll 

call vote of 22 to 0, 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 vote occurred during the Committee’s consideration of H. 

Res. 243. 

1. Motion to report H. Res. 243, as amended, favorably to the 

House was approved by a vote of 22 to 0. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
7 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 14 here HR33.001
8 

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 and 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate 

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to requirements 

of clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 

1974, the Committee has requested but not received a cost estimate 

for this bill from the Director of Congressional Budget Office. The 

Committee has requested but not received from the Director of the 

Congressional Budget Office a statement as to whether this bill 

contains any new budget authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. 

Duplication of Federal Programs 

No provision of H. Res. 243 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. 

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. 243 would direct Attorney General William Barr to transmit to the House of 

Representatives certain documents and materials pertaining to: (1) 

meetings or discussions between Deputy Attorney General Rod J. 

Rosenstein and former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Acting Director Andrew McCabe regarding certain conversations with 

President Donald Trump; and (2) any meetings or discussions between or among FBI Acting Director McCabe and others at the FBI 

regarding certain matters. 

Advisory on Earmarks 

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

of Representatives, H. Res. 243 does not contain any congressional 

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

in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI. 

Section-by-Section Analysis 

The following discussion describes the Resolution as reported by 

the Committee. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
9 

29 In pertinent part, the 25th Amendment provides: 

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit 

to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and 

duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties 

of the office as Acting President. 

U.S. Const. amend. XXV, § 4. 

H. Res. 243 directs the Attorney General to transmit to the 

House, not later than 14 days after the Resolution is adopted, any 

such documents and other materials that refer or relate to: 

(1) Any meetings or discussions between or among Deputy 

Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein and former FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe, regarding conversations with the 

President, including but not limited to— 

(A) any reference concerning wearing a recording device 

or preparing in anyway to record the President; and 

(B) any reference concerning the invocation of the 25th 

Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to remove the President from office.29

(2) Any meetings or discussions between or among FBI Acting Director McCabe and others at the FBI referring or relating to commencing or continuing an obstruction of justice or 

counterintelligence investigation of the President. 

Additional Views 

For more than two years, the American people suffered from 

rampant speculation that President Trump had conspired (or 

‘‘colluded’’) with the Russian Federation to steal the 2016 presidential election. This narrative had escalated to the point of wild 

conjecture among a cabal inside the FBI that President Trump 

could in fact be a Russian agent. 

However, Special Counsel Robert Mueller has finally and formally debunked the media and Democrat narrative that Vladimir 

Putin’s minions infiltrated the presidential campaign of Donald 

Trump. 

This should come as a great relief to the American people. However, the nation must also heal from this farce and fully expose its 

origins so such a tragedy is never repeated in the future. 

On May 9, 2017, President Trump fired FBI Director James 

Comey, who oversaw the debacle that was the investigation into 

Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information. For his conduct in relation to that investigation, Director Comey was later 

deemed ‘‘insubordinate’’ by the DOJ Inspector General. 

In response to Comey’s firing, the FBI appears to have opened 

at least two investigations into President Trump. One investigation 

pertained to counterintelligence, involving incredible theories such 

as the possibility that President Trump was an asset controlled by 

Vladimir Putin. The other investigation considered the possibility 

that the firing of Director Comey itself constituted obstruction of 

justice, despite Comey’s clear mishandling of the Hillary Clinton 

investigation and the President’s clear authority to relieve a subordinate of his or her duties. 

Soon after the initiation of these two investigations, it was reported high-ranking officials in the Department of Justice and the 

FBI had begun discussing methods to remove President Trump 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
10 

from office. One of these methods involved gaining the approval of 

the Vice President and the Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment 

to remove the President from office, despite the fact that the 25th 

Amendment was originally intended to handle situations of presidential incapacitation. It was also reported Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe, then-Acting FBI Director, discussed plans to surreptitiously record the President of the 

United States. 

On March 24, 2019, the House Judiciary Committee received a 

letter from Attorney General William Barr, outlining the principal 

conclusions reached by Special Counsel Mueller. Among those conclusions are that ‘‘the Special Counsel’s investigation did not find 

that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or 

coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. 

presidential election.’’ The Special Counsel’s report, therefore, demonstrates all the conspiracy theories of President Trump’s purported collusion with the Russians represented nothing more than 

the fevered imaginations of the President’s political opponents. 

However, the American people were nevertheless bombarded 

with ridiculous and false allegations against President Trump for 

the past several years. The investigation cast a cloud over this administration, and diminished the American people’s faith in their 

government. It is therefore insufficient to simply tell them to move 

on and put the entire saga behind them. The American people deserve a full accounting of how a subset of individuals inside the 

FBI and DOJ were able to get away with opening and running 

these ill-founded investigations, over a period of years, involving 

millions of taxpayer dollars spent to investigate a political candidate, his campaign, and eventually, the duly-elected President of 

the United States. 

Imagine the uproar from Democrats and the media had there 

been an indication that a faction of FBI and DOJ officials with 

demonstrated biases against President Obama had proposed recording him, opened obstruction of justice and counterintelligence 

investigations against him, and discussed the possibility of removing him from office via the 25th Amendment. 

There must be accountability for what transpired inside our law 

enforcement and intelligence communities before, during, and following the 2016 presidential election. Ranking Member Collins’ 

Resolution of Inquiry, approved unanimously by Republicans and 

Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, intends to achieve just 

that. 

The ROI 

The ROI seeks documents related to conversations—whose existence was confirmed by the Committee’s interviews—concerning 

surreptitiously recording President Trump and invoking the 25th 

Amendment to remove him from office. No duly-elected president, 

whether Republican or Democrat, should be placed in a position 

where his or her Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation are engaged in an attempt to overturn the will of the 

American people simply because they hate the man or woman who 

won the election. Such an effort, which many Members have characterized as an attempted coup, defies belief in the United States 

of America. Yet testimony provided to Congress by multiple indiVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:40 Apr 06, 2019 Jkt 089008 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR033.XXX HR033

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS
11 

viduals confirmed that many viewed such conversations as completely serious. 

It is imperative that Congress understand the origins of this effort. Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and former Acting Director McCabe have offered conflicting accounts of their alleged conversations about invoking the 25th Amendment. The conflicts are 

profound enough that both accounts cannot be true, which raises 

questions as to who has lied, including to Congress. Lying to Congress and impeding a congressional investigation are, of course, 

felonies. Congress must, therefore, have access to documents related to conversations surrounding this planned surveillance and 

possible invocation of the 25th Amendment, to ensure American 

history books relay the extent of DOJ and FBI wrongdoing. 

Testimony before the Judiciary Committee indicates Andrew 

McCabe, who was fired from the FBI and referred for criminal 

prosecution, kept memoranda memorializing high-level DOJ and 

FBI plans to secretly record President Trump and invoke the 25th 

Amendment to remove him from office. Just as Comey’s memos 

were released (partially redacted), Congress must have access to 

the so-called ‘‘McCabe memos,’’ to promote transparency and Americans’ trust in our government. Congress is fully capable of protecting classified and other sensitive information, as part of its constitutional oversight responsibilities. There is no good reason to 

keep this information from the people’s representatives. 

Accordingly, on September 27, 2018, former Chairman Bob Goodlatte subpoenaed the Department of Justice to produce the McCabe 

memos. The Department of Justice has therefore been on notice for 

many months that the House Judiciary Committee seeks production of the McCabe memos. Nevertheless, DOJ managed to delay 

their response to the subpoena until this Congress, when the subpoena was no longer viable. Running out the clock has thus protected the agencies’ interest in secrecy, but doesn’t protect the 

American people’s interest in transparency. 

Sincerely, 

DOUG COLLINS. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with REPORTS