This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/04/us/politics/trump-hope-hicks-annie-donaldson.html

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Justice Dept. Offers to Renew Talks With Democrats if Contempt Vote Is Deferred Talks Between Democrats and Justice Dept. in Doubt Over Barr Contempt Vote
(about 5 hours later)
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department offered on Tuesday to renew negotiations with House Democrats over access to the full text of the special counsel’s report and underlying evidence in an effort to stave off a House vote next week to hold Attorney General William P. Barr in contempt. WASHINGTON — House Democrats said on Tuesday that they were willing to renew negotiations with the Justice Department over access to the special counsel’s full report and investigative files, but rejected a call to pre-emptively cancel a House vote to hold Attorney General William P. Barr in contempt.
The Trump administration was willing to negotiate only if the House Judiciary Committee withdrew its recommendation to hold Mr. Barr in contempt and Democrats postponed a vote over it on the floor of the House scheduled for Tuesday, Stephen E. Boyd, an assistant attorney general, wrote in a letter to lawmakers. Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the Judiciary Committee chairman who issued a subpoena for the materials at the center of a simmering dispute, said he was ready to talk immediately to try to reach a compromise, but only “without conditions” preset by the Justice Department. The House has scheduled the contempt vote for next Tuesday after weeks of refusals by Mr. Barr and his department to comply with the subpoena.
If the vote proceeds, Democrats were expected to hold Mr. Barr himself in contempt for defying a Judiciary Committee subpoena for the material and grant House committees the power to go straight to court in similar future disputes. “We urge you not to make the mistake of breaking off accommodations again,” Mr. Nadler wrote in a letter to Mr. Barr on Tuesday evening. “We are here and ready to negotiate as early as tomorrow morning.”
Mr. Nadler’s rejection of the department’s request left in doubt whether it would still be willing to engage in talks. Stephen E. Boyd, an assistant attorney general, wrote in a letter to lawmakers earlier Tuesday that the Trump administration was willing to negotiate only if the Judiciary Committee withdrew its recommendation to hold Mr. Barr in contempt and Democrats postponed the final vote.
“The department is prepared to resume negotiations with the committee regarding accommodation of its narrowed subpoena, provided the committee takes reasonable steps” to alleviate the threat of a contempt vote for the attorney general, Mr. Boyd had written. The Justice Department did not immediately comment on Mr. Nadler’s response.
If the vote proceeds, it would be only the second time in American history that Congress has held the nation’s top law enforcement official in contempt — a sign of the deep animus the special counsel’s investigation has engendered between the legislative and executive branches. In addition to holding Mr. Barr in contempt, Democrats were expected to vote to grant House committees the power to go straight to court in similar future disputes.
[Read the letter from the Justice Department.][Read the letter from the Justice Department.]
“The department is prepared to resume negotiations with the committee regarding accommodation of its narrowed subpoena, provided the committee takes reasonable steps” to alleviate the threat of a contempt vote for the attorney general, Mr. Boyd wrote. Negotiations between the two sides have been rived with mistrust for months, with both sides pointing fingers over the escalating tensions. Democrats are wary that the Justice Department’s latest offer could be merely a stalling tactic to try to at least delay the contempt vote rather than a good-faith step toward accommodation. And the department has maintained that Democrats are being unreasonable in the scope and speed of their demands.
It was not immediately clear whether Democrats would accept the move as a good-faith step toward accommodating their weeks-old requests or simply an effort by the Justice Department to prepare for looming court litigation by demonstrating they had engaged with Congress as the standoff escalated. With the contempt vote looming, Mr. Nadler had written the department on May 24 that the committee was willing to narrow and prioritize its request to “specific materials that if produced would be deemed to satisfy the subpoena,” including summaries of F.B.I. interviews with roughly 30 witnesses, as well as notes taken by key witnesses and White House documents cited in the report and related to possible obstruction of justice. He also said he would be willing to limit a demand over which lawmakers got to see a less redacted version of the report.
Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the Judiciary Committee chairman who issued the subpoena for Robert S. Mueller III’s full report and underlying evidence, did not immediately respond to the Justice Department’s letter. With the contempt vote looming, Mr. Nadler had written the department on May 24 that the committee was willing to narrow its request to “specific materials that if produced would be deemed to satisfy the subpoena” and make their delivery a priority. Mr. Boyd called the more limited request “more reasonable” and said it “could mitigate some of the legal barriers to disclosure” that the department had earlier objected to.
Even if Mr. Nadler were to agree to reopen talks, the two sides appear to be far from a total thaw in hostilities between the Trump administration and the Democratic-controlled House over its attempt to build a public case that the president obstructed justice in impeding the investigation into his presidential campaign’s contact with Russians. But even if talks do restart, the two sides appear to be far from a total thaw in hostilities over the Democrat-controlled House’s attempt to build a public case that the president obstructed justice in impeding the investigation into his presidential campaign’s contact with Russians.
To wit, the last-minute proposal from the Justice Department came just hours after the White House had instructed two more former aides to Mr. Trump not to cooperate with subpoenas from the Judiciary Committee, continuing a crippling blockade of nearly all oversight requests related to the special counsel’s investigation. To wit, the last-minute proposal from the Justice Department came only hours after the White House had instructed two more former aides to Mr. Trump not to cooperate with subpoenas from the Judiciary Committee, continuing a crippling blockade of nearly all oversight requests related to the special counsel’s investigation.
In a letter to Mr. Nadler, Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel, had said that the president’s chief of staff had informed the former aides — Hope Hicks, who served as White House communications director, and Annie Donaldson, who was chief of staff to former White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn II — that they were not allowed to share the materials in question with Congress because they implicate “significant executive branch confidentiality interests and executive privilege.” In a letter to Mr. Nadler, Pat A. Cipollone, the White House counsel, had said that the president’s chief of staff had informed the former aides — Hope Hicks, who served as the White House communications director, and Annie Donaldson, who was the chief of staff to Donald F. McGahn II, the former White House counsel — that they were not allowed to share the materials in question with Congress because they implicate “significant executive branch confidentiality interests and executive privilege.”
[Read the letter from Mr. Cipollone.][Read the letter from Mr. Cipollone.]
Instead, Mr. Cipollone instructed Congress again to come directly to the White House for any information previously turned over to the special counsel. But he suggested those conversations should be deferred pending the outcome of discussions between the Justice Department and the Judiciary Committee.Instead, Mr. Cipollone instructed Congress again to come directly to the White House for any information previously turned over to the special counsel. But he suggested those conversations should be deferred pending the outcome of discussions between the Justice Department and the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Nadler was furious, and he argued the White House’s claims that the material could be protected would not hold up in court. Mr. Nadler was furious, arguing that the White House’s claims that the material could be protected would not hold up in court.
“Federal law makes clear that the documents we requested — documents that left the White House months ago — are no longer covered by executive privilege, if they ever were,” Mr. Nadler said in a statement. “The president has no lawful basis for preventing these witnesses from complying with our request.”“Federal law makes clear that the documents we requested — documents that left the White House months ago — are no longer covered by executive privilege, if they ever were,” Mr. Nadler said in a statement. “The president has no lawful basis for preventing these witnesses from complying with our request.”
Under subpoenas issued by the Judiciary Committee, the two witnesses had been instructed to deliver on Tuesday a range of documents related to their work in the White House, including notes and records related to some of Mr. Trump’s attempts to thwart federal investigators — attempts documented by Mr. Mueller in the report he completed in March. Under subpoenas issued by the Judiciary Committee, the two witnesses had been instructed to deliver on Tuesday a range of documents related to their work in the White House, including notes and records related to some of Mr. Trump’s attempts to thwart federal investigators — attempts documented by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, in the report he completed in March.
Mr. Nadler said that Ms. Hicks, who also served as a top aide on Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, did produce some documents related to her work before the election. He called it a “show of good faith,” though it was unclear how useful the material would prove to an investigation dealing primarily with Mr. Trump’s presidency. Mr. Nadler said that Ms. Hicks, who also served as a top aide on Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, did produce some documents related to her work before the election. He called it a “show of good faith,” though a copy of a letter from Ms. Hicks’s lawyer obtained by The New York Times says she handed over only four documents containing email chains.
In addition to documents, the subpoenas call for Ms. Hicks and Ms. Donaldson to testify publicly later this month — and there was no indication on Tuesday whether or not they would comply. Mr. Nadler made clear his position that they both were still expected to show up before the panel. Ms. Hicks has been subpoenaed to appear on June 19 and Ms. Donaldson on June 24. In addition to documents, the subpoenas call for Ms. Hicks and Ms. Donaldson to testify publicly this month — and there was no indication on Tuesday whether they would comply. Mr. Nadler made clear his position that both were still expected to show up before the panel. Ms. Hicks has been subpoenaed to appear on June 19 and Ms. Donaldson on June 24.
[Read the Judiciary Committee subpoenas for Ms. Hicks and Ms. Donaldson.][Read the Judiciary Committee subpoenas for Ms. Hicks and Ms. Donaldson.]
“We will continue to seek reasonable accommodation on these and all our discovery requests and intend to press these issues when we obtain the testimony of both Ms. Hicks and Ms. Donaldson,” Mr. Nadler said.
But there appears to be little chance either former aide will testify, bolstering the case made by a growing number of House Democrats that the president is actively obstructing another branch of government from doing its constitutionally sanctioned oversight function, and that impeachment proceedings are the only proportional response.But there appears to be little chance either former aide will testify, bolstering the case made by a growing number of House Democrats that the president is actively obstructing another branch of government from doing its constitutionally sanctioned oversight function, and that impeachment proceedings are the only proportional response.
A lawyer for Mr. Hicks, Robert Trout, declined to comment. The White House issued similar instructions not to cooperate last month to Mr. McGahn, who had served as one of the most important witnesses in Mr. Mueller’s investigation into obstruction of justice. He ultimately did not produce a single document or appear for a hearing. If it does not alter course for the Justice Department, the House is poised to hold Mr. McGahn in contempt of Congress next week, as well, and take the dispute to court to try to enforce its subpoena — steps that could soon follow for Ms. Hicks and Ms. Donaldson if they do not show up to the Judiciary Committee’s hearings.
The White House issued similar instructions not to cooperate last month to Mr. McGahn, who had served as one the most important witnesses in Mr. Mueller’s investigation into obstruction of justice. He ultimately did not produce a single document or appear for a hearing. If it does not alter course for the Justice Department, the House is poised to hold Mr. McGahn in contempt of Congress next week, as well, and take the dispute to court to try to enforce its subpoena — steps that could soon follow for Ms. Hicks and Ms. Donaldson if they do not show up to the Judiciary Committee’s hearings. With potential star witnesses off limits and Mr. Mueller reluctant to testify, Democrats have for now been left to try to figure out other ways to bring Mr. Mueller’s 448-page report to life. On Monday, Mr. Nadler announced that his committee would hold a series of hearings on the report with former federal prosecutors, legal experts and John W. Dean, who went to jail for his role in the Watergate affair.
Democrats view all three former officials as important witnesses for public hearings on the Mueller report. Republicans, who remain closely aligned with the president, have repeatedly accused Democrats of being less interested in the truth than in manufacturing a conflict with the White House that could provide a pretext for impeachment. They painted the possibility of new talks between the two sides on Tuesday as further evidence Democrats had been acting irresponsibly.
Democrats also continue to try to secure testimony from Mr. Mueller himself, but he is reluctant to testify. Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat, told reporters on Tuesday that Mr. Mueller should be subpoenaed if he refuses to testify voluntarily.
“He may want a subpoena, in which case I think we ought to issue a subpoena,” Mr. Hoyer said.
For now, Democrats have been left to try to figure out other ways to bring Mr. Mueller’s 448-page to life. On Monday, Mr. Nadler announced his committee would hold a series of hearings on the report with former federal prosecutors, legal experts and John W. Dean, who went to jail for his role in the Watergate affair.
And on Tuesday, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the Intelligence Committee chairman, announced that his committee would also convene a series of hearings on Mr. Mueller’s findings related to Russia’s election interference efforts in 2016. The first hearing, he said, would likely focus on the F.B.I.’s decision to open a counterintelligence investigation, rather than a criminal investigation, and Mr. Trump’s pursuit of building a Trump Tower in Moscow until well into the presidential campaign, something he denied repeatedly.