Great ResignationDiversity and InclusionCompensationCEO DailyCFO DailyModern Board

DOJ Strikes Deal to Hand Over Some Mueller Investigation Evidence

June 10, 2019, 4:55 PM UTC

House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler said the Justice Department has agreed to begin turning over some information the panel had subpoenaed related to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

“The department will share the first of these documents with us later today,” Nadler, a New York Democrat, said in a statement Monday. He added that all members of the committee will be able to view the materials. “These documents will allow us to perform our constitutional duties and decide how to respond to the allegations laid out against the president by the special counsel.”

The committee and Attorney General William Barr have been locked in a fight over access to Congress of redacted portions of Mueller’s report, as well as the underlying evidence. Nadler’s announcement comes a day before the House plans to vote on a resolution authorizing Nadler and his committee to initiate civil legal action against Barr for his refusal to turn over Mueller report-related material.

The deal with the Justice Department won’t forestall the Tuesday vote, according to a House official who spoke on condition of anonymity. The resolution drafted by House Democrats would give the Judiciary Committee authority to pursue civil legal action and judgments against Barr and former White House Counsel Don McGahn for defying congressional demands for documents and testimony under White House direction.

Nadler said that if the department “proceeds in good faith and we are able to obtain everything that we need, then there will be no need to take further steps.” But if important information is held back, he added, “then we will have no choice but to enforce our subpoena in court and consider other remedies.”

Republican Response

While Nadler has blamed the Justice Department for refusing to negotiate over material to release, Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said he was glad that Nadler “has finally” met the Justice Department at the negotiating table. He said the “good-faith provision” from the administration to turn over the documents “debunks” claims the White House is stalling Congress.

“In light of today’s agreement from the Justice Department, it’s logical to ask: Is the chairman prepared to rescind his baseless recommendation to hold the attorney general in contempt, or do House Democrats still plan to green-light lawsuits against the attorney general and former White House counsel tomorrow?”

The developments came as Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other top House Democrats work to counter President Donald Trump’s defiance of congressional investigations by imposing consequences for ignoring House subpoenas and other demands.

Despite pressure from inside their caucus to open a formal presidential impeachment inquiry, they sought to maintain a middle ground with a vote on the House floor to further empower committee oversight of Trump and his administration.

The planned resolution stops short of finding Barr and McGahn in contempt of Congress, a move the House Judiciary Committee approved for Barr. The resolution also would give Nadler and a number of other chairmen the power to issue contempt citations — with approval of Pelosi and a couple of her top House lieutenants — without needing a vote of the full House.

Middle Path

“It’s a resolution that reflects the middle of the caucus, who appear to have grown frustrated over the president’s obstruction,” said Joshua Huder, a senior fellow with the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University. “Regardless of its political meaning, it’s a step up in the fight between Congress and the president.”

Confronted with Trump’s vow to resist all cooperation with House investigations — “we’re fighting all the subpoenas,” he said in April — Democrats are also moving on other fronts to sharpen their case against the president.

That starts with a hearing on Monday afternoon labeled “Lessons from the Mueller Report: Presidential Obstruction and Other Crimes.” Lacking any administration witnesses, the committee will hear from critics including John Dean, who was President Richard Nixon’s White House counsel and gave crucial testimony when the House weighed impeaching him.

Dean has become an outspoken critic of Trump. The president tweeted on Sunday that Democrats seeking a “Do Over” of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s findings “are even bringing in @CNN sleazebag John Dean.”

Donald J. Trump


….No Obstruction. The Dems were devastated – after all this time and money spent ($40,000,000), the Mueller Report was a disaster for them. But they want a Redo, or Do Over. They are even bringing in @CNN sleazebag attorney John Dean. Sorry, no Do Overs – Go back to work!

Sent via Twitter for iPhone.

View original tweet.

The new round of House hearings could be a start to building a case for “high crimes and misdemeanors” — the constitutional standard for impeachment — even as Pelosi continues to stiff-arm calls from increasing number of her House Democratic colleagues for a formal impeachment inquiry. That’s included nudging in private from Nadler.

Barr had resisted producing an unredacted version of Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and the underlying evidence. McGahn has refused to produce documents or appear before the Judiciary panel to provide testimony concerning Trump’s alleged obstruction of justice. The White House asked both men not to comply with the congressional subpoenas.

The speaker’s middle-ground approach giving more power to committee chairmen also may provide protection — at least for now — to some House Democrats in districts that were carried by Trump in 2016, according to Samuel Everett Dewey, a former congressional lawyer who led investigations in key committees in both the House and Senate.

“This will completely shield them,” said Dewey, who’s now with the law firm McDermott Will & Emery.

But rushing to launch swifter court action to stop Trump’s delaying tactics carries risks — including that the House might lose some of these cases. And there’s no guarantee that getting to court faster means the case will be resolved swiftly. It took several years to get a court ruling in a 2012 contempt of Congress action against one of former President Barack Obama’s attorneys general, Eric Holder, over issues executive privilege.

There have been swift initial successes for House legal efforts in federal court orders to Mazars USA, Deutsche Bank AG and Capital One Financial Corp. to produce financial records. But Dewey, the former congressional lawyer, said House moves toward fast action could backfire.

‘Litigation Risk’

“The more you speed up and strip process, the more litigation risk you run,” he said.

The House Rules Committee will meet Monday night to debate the path forward for Tuesday’s House vote.

Representative Gerald Connolly of Virginia, chairman of the House Oversight subcommittee on government operations, said he doesn’t worry that Democrats demanding impeachment now will use that stage to undermine Pelosi’s go-slow approach.

“The honest discussion about impeachment” among House Democrats reflects the discussions “going on in households across the nation and in the media,” he said.

More must-read stories from Fortune:

Democrats hold out on USMCA as Trump walks back Mexico tariffs

—The story behind the Baby Trump balloon

—FCC takes major steps toward limiting robocalls and scammers

Michael Bloomberg pledges $500 million to combat climate change

—Listen to our new audio briefing, Fortune 500 Daily

Get up to speed on your morning commute with Fortune’s CEO Daily newsletter.