Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) made it clear on Thursday what would happen if President Donald Trump fires his attorney general, Jeff Sessions. “If Jeff Sessions is fired, there will be holy hell to pay,” he told CNN. Graham also said he is looking to introduce legislation next week that would block the firing of special counsels without a judicial review.

Rumors have been swirling around Capitol Hill this week that Trump is looking to dispose of Sessions and Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed to investigate Russia’s election interference, and any potential links between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign.

“This effort to basically marginalize and humiliate the attorney general is not going over well in the Senate,” Graham told CNN. “If you believe Jeff Sessions should be fired, use the power you have and accept the consequences.”

On Monday, Trump fired off a tweet calling Sessions “beleaguered,” asking why he has not looked into “Crooked Hillarys [sic] crimes & Russia relations.” Trump is reportedly upset that Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation, which left an opening filled by Mueller, a widely respected prosecutor who Trump is also unhappy with.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has taken a VERY weak position on Hillary Clinton crimes (where are E-mails & DNC server) & Intel leakers!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 25, 2017

Sessions was one of Trump’s earliest advocates, and the first senator to embrace his candidacy. The attorney general has also faithfully pursued Trump’s campaign vision–perhaps more than any other cabinet appointee–adopting a hard-line immigration stance and a law and order philosophy on crime.

Republican senators rushed to Sessions’ defense following Trump’s Twitter barrage. They were joined by some Democrats, like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who warned that firing Sessions could provoke a “constitutional crisis.” Others said it would further prove that Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice in the investigations involving Russia and his campaign.

Sessions had been largely mum on the topic of his potential firing until Thursday afternoon. In an interview with Fox, he called Trump’s attacks “hurtful,” but said that Trump “is determined to move this country in the direction he believes it needs to go to make us great again.” He added that Trump “wants all of us to do our jobs and that’s what I intend to do.”

Graham’s legislation would essentially make it more difficult for Trump, and future presidents, to fire a special counsel, which includes Mueller. Dismissing a special counsel would require a judicial review to determine if reasons behind the firing “meet the statutory definitions,” Graham said.

The effort is likely to be a bi-partisan endeavor. Graham’s Democratic colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) have said they are working on the bill. Blumenthal said it “might be a committee effort,” adding that firing Mueller “would precipitate a firestorm that would be unprecedented in proportions.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lindsey Graham: If Trump Fires Sessions, “There Will be Holy Hell to Pay” appeared first on Law Street.

Late Wednesday, a variety of news outlets published reports that Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 election, requested interviews with a trio of current and former intelligence officials.

The news was first reported by the Washington Post, and later by the New York Times. It came from anonymous sources and fueled speculation that Mueller is widening his investigation to determine whether President Donald Trump, in firing Comey last month, obstructed justice. On Thursday morning, Trump tweeted that the obstruction of justice probe is a “phony story” created by “conflicted” people:

They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2017

You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history – led by some very bad and conflicted people! #MAGA

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2017

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein selected Mueller to lead the investigation last month, soon after Trump fired Comey, who at the time was heading the FBI’s inquiry into Russia and its potential links to the Trump campaign. Testifying in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee–which is conducting its own investigation into Russia’s interference–last week, Comey said a number of private meetings with the president led him to document the encounters.

“I was honestly concerned that he might lie about the nature of our meeting, and so I thought it really important to document,” Comey said.

In his retelling of the events, Comey recalled Trump said he “hoped” that he would shutter the FBI’s investigation into former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn. This, some observers have said, might amount to a case against Trump for obstructing justice. The Post’s report does indicate Mueller is indeed investigating the matter in terms of potential obstruction, but it does not mean that Trump is guilty of any misdeeds.

“This unfounded accusation against the president changes nothing,” the RNC said in a statement in response to the Post’s story, despite the fact that Mueller has yet to level any accusations against the president. “There’s still no evidence of obstruction, and current and former leaders in the intelligence community have repeatedly said there’s been no effort to impede the investigation in any way.”

According to the anonymous source, Mueller will interview three current and former high-ranking intelligence officials: Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, NSA Director Mike Rogers, and former deputy director of the NSA Richard Ledgett.

Rogers has publicly acknowledged that he had never felt pressured to end the FBI’s probe into Flynn. During a hearing last week, he said:

“I have never been directed to do anything I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate,” Rogers said. “And to the best of my recollection, during that same period of service, I do not recall ever feeling pressured to do so.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mueller’s Apparent Obstruction of Justice Investigation: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

During a hearing with the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning, FBI Director James Comey told lawmakers he felt “mildly nauseous” that his actions may have affected the outcome on November 8. This was Comey’s first hearing since he told the House in March that the FBI has been investigating ties between Trump’s campaign and the Russian government. It also gave a clearer view into Comey’s thoughts on the consequences of his actions leading up to Election Day.

But although Comey implied that his actions could be regretful–including publicly announcing that the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server was ongoing on October 28–he said concealing that information would have been “catastrophic.” Democrats–including Clinton–have derided Comey for going public with information regarding the Clinton investigation but failing to reveal the Trump investigation until months after the election.

The hearing opened with remarks from the committee’s top members from each party, Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). Grassley pressed for specifics on why Comey and the FBI pursued the investigation into Trump’s role in the Kremlin’s election meddling. “We need to know if there was anything improper between the Trump campaign and the Russians,” he said, or if Trump critics are merely “chasing a conspiracy theory.”

Feinstein focused on the FBI’s potential effect on the election. “I join those who believe that the actions taken by the FBI did in fact have an impact on the election,” she said. Clinton, in an extensive and unguarded interview on Tuesday, pegged her loss on Comey, WikiLeaks, and Russia. She did, however, take “absolute personal responsibility,” for losing to Trump. “I was the candidate. I was the person who was on the ballot,” she said.

Comey also made it clear in the hearing that Russia, which U.S. intelligence agencies concluded hacked Democratic operatives’ emails to aid Trump’s campaign, remains a threat. Russia is the primary threat to democracy, he said, and bluntly concurred when asked if Moscow’s cyber efforts are ongoing. “Yes,” he responded. Seemingly responding to Clinton’s remarks on Tuesday, Trump sent a series of tweets that critiqued Comey and Clinton, and referred to himself in the third person, all at the same time:

FBI Director Comey was the best thing that ever happened to Hillary Clinton in that he gave her a free pass for many bad deeds! The phony…

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 3, 2017

…Trump/Russia story was an excuse used by the Democrats as justification for losing the election. Perhaps Trump just ran a great campaign?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 3, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post James Comey Feels “Mildly Nauseous” that the FBI Might Have Affected the Election appeared first on Law Street.

At the moment, there are three active investigations into the communications between Russian government officials and the Trump campaign. The Senate and House intelligence committees, as well as the FBI, are probing the matter. And while all three investigations are likely asking some of the same questions, it’s the House investigation that has generated the most noise.

That attention has largely been a byproduct of how its chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), has handled intelligence reports. On Thursday, Nunes temporarily stepped aside in his role as the head of the committee’s investigation. So, what, if anything, did the committee discover since its investigation launched? And, more importantly, where is the investigation headed?

At a recent panel in Washington DC, Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), a member of the committee, said the investigation is about two things. One, he said, is answering the question of whether or not Trump or members of his administration colluded with the Russians in meddling in the election, intending, as the FBI and CIA concluded, to prop up the Trump campaign. Even if there was no collusion, Himes said, “is it nonetheless possible that the Russians have some form of compromise on the United States president?”

Himes called Nunes’s decision to recuse himself from the investigation “welcome news,” adding that while the chairman made mistakes, he is “fundamentally a decent guy.” But last week, on CNN, Himes also said Nunes’s behavior was “loopy” and “bizarre.”

Rep. Jim Himes says Rep. Devin Nunes’ behavior is “loopy” and “bizarre” https://t.co/uIuE85kQdQ pic.twitter.com/4KSvlwGHRe

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) March 27, 2017

Himes expressed dismay at the noise Nunes stirred up because “we were actually making pretty good progress.” He also called for “an independent, outside, bipartisan commission” to head the effort moving forward. Many have called for something akin to the special commission that investigated the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But, Himes added, regardless of who is in charge, “[the investigation] is not going to happen quickly.”

Himes was tight-lipped about what exactly the committee has dug up thus far, but he did say “there is not nothing there.” He added: “This doesn’t end I think with the conclusion that really nobody did nothing to anybody…but how serious it is I don’t want to characterize and prejudge.” Regardless of the committee’s ultimate conclusions, Himes said Russia’s actions, and its attempts to undermine America’s democratic system, deserve a “concerted response.”

Weeks before he was set to leave office, former President Barack Obama punished Russia by imposing further sanctions on individual actors, as well as barring four Russian officials from traveling to the U.S. Two Russian-owned diplomatic compounds in the U.S. were shuttered as well. Obama’s response, Himes said, was “inadequate.” He added that it is unclear what a proper response might look like, but “we do need to extract a price.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where is the House Intel Committee’s Russia Investigation Headed? appeared first on Law Street.

Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn would testify in the House and Senate intelligence committees’ Russia investigations in exchange for immunity, his lawyer said in a statement on Thursday. Flynn “certainly has a story to tell,” said his lawyer, Robert Kelner, who added that his client is seeking immunity because of the “highly politicized, witch-hunt environment” of the investigations.

An immunity deal would protect Flynn against criminal charges, should it come to light that he broke the law. According to a U.S. official, the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is engaged in one of two congressional investigations of President Donald Trump and his advisers’ communications with Russia, denied Flynn’s immunity request. The House Intelligence Committee, which is running the second congressional investigation, has not responded as of Friday morning.

Flynn resigned in February after he misled White House officials, including Vice President Mike Pence, about the content of his communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. He has since become a central figure in the murky saga of Russia–which the FBI and CIA concluded meddled in the U.S. election in favor of President Donald Trump–and its communications with Trump aides during the campaign.

Congress has the ability to grant immunity, but usually consults a prosecutor first. The FBI is conducting a parallel investigation into Trump and his advisers’ ties to Russia, which director James Comey recently said has been underway since last July. The Justice Department has the power to delay–but not outright deny–an immunity request.

Kelner, Flynn’s lawyer, said in a statement, “no reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicized, witch-hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution.” He added, somewhat cryptically: “General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should circumstances permit.” Trump, in a message on Twitter early Friday, encouraged Flynn to seek immunity:

Mike Flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch hunt (excuse for big election loss), by media & Dems, of historic proportion!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 31, 2017

But an immunity request does not necessarily suggest Flynn is guilty of something worthy of criminal charges. “At this early stage, I wouldn’t read anything into this request beyond smart lawyering,” Mark Zaid, a lawyer who specializes in national security cases, told the New York Times. “In such a politically charged, high-profile national security case, I couldn’t imagine not first asking for immunity.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About Michael Flynn’s Immunity Request appeared first on Law Street.