Order. Senator whitehouse is on his way and is okay starting with senator klobuchar. The purpose of the hearing is explore the distinct roles of congress and the executive branch respect to conducting investigations and discuss best practices. We have an incredible panel here who have been down this road many times. Criminal investigations are designed to find out if a crime was committed and hold somebody upon. Congress has a broader mandate. Were not prosecutors but our goal is to shed light on information that may be lie significant but not necessarily criminal, a just policy is needed, change laws when appropriate, but in a particular circumstance, find out what happened, not as a prosecutor but as a policymaker. The power of congress. Mr. Rosenberg, one of the leading experts on congressional oversight, said in the absence of a countervailing constitutional privilege or selfimposed statutory restriction upon its Authority Congress and hit commit years have the power to compel production of information needed to discharging their legislative functions. Think thats true but is i bounded by the respect for the criminal process. So, were trying to find out where that Boundary Line exists, how to navigate the problem, and proceed in an orderly man sore we do not get in the way of mr. Mueller but we discharge our duties to the public at large. After having cult cut my phone off ill swear in the witnesses. Please rise. Do each of you swear that the testimony you give before this committee this truth, the whole truth, and nothing built truth so help you god . Thank you. Well, as i indicated, we have a really Incredible Group of people who would be very helpful to this committee how he move forward. Mrichard ven from 59 to 96 he acted as chief counsel on the whitewater committee, from 73 to 745 was chief hoff the water Watergate Task force. He because one over ten commissioner only the 9 11 Commission Welcome and thank you for coming. Mr. Daniel bryan has been the exec consecutive director of the project on government oversight since 18993, and issued a report recently entitled necessary and proper best practices for congressional investigations and thats what were trying to find out, the best practices. Mr. Andrew frye, represented the government in the mets of the irancontra condition of admiral poindexter in seeking the Supreme Court review of the rehearsal of convictions of admiral poindexter and colonel north. Were trying avoid getting the way of the prosecutor. He was the general counsel acting and general counsel to the u. S. House of representatives, assistant Legal Counsel of the United States senate from 1979 to 1984. Each of you and your own way have a tremendous insight into how congress should behave when theres a conflict between a congressional investigation and a potential crime, and just as he is known for, perfect timing, senator whitehouse will now give his Opening Statement. Thank you, chairman graham. I like the haircut. Thank you. Must have ran from rhode island. Or deadly serious as they implicate the president s fitness to perform the duties of his office. In the meantime the subcommittee is doing its job. If the function of congress is to be preferred even to its legislative function. From senator trumans investigation of the defense contractors to the Army Mccarthy hearings to the watergate hearings, the senate function has always been important even if sometimes imperfect. To proceed in parallel without harm to either. We are pleased to have experts in the area shed light to their study and experience. One particular issue is the still undisclosed tax returns of donald trump and the separate means for criminal investigations and congressional investigations to gain access to such materials. The bottom line is this. While it would be wrong for the Senate Investigations to peer over the shoulders of the investigations and look at the content of the files, there is nothing wrong with both investigations looking at the same evidence acquired separately and consistent with law carey at one last point before we turn to the witnesses, the assertion in the website of hearings of executive privilege. Ive read those memos and one focuses on the broad power of the query to expose corruption and the executive branch and emphasizes the limits on executive privilege. The second memo of the attorney general cant temporarily hold off congressional inquiries while the president decides whether to assert executive privilege. Answers may be held while the president makes the privilege determination. Ultimately, the president must assert executive privilege or the attorney general must answer and in my view, that clock has run. The witness will appear with honest and accurate responses to questions if this is a principle worth defending. We intend to give straight answers. Thank you mr. Chairman. Chairman graham and Ranking Member white house. On the overlapping the distinguishable responsibilities to the. Of the prosecutor of the office of Watergate Special prosecution force, chief minority counsel to the committee, chief counsel and Senate Hearings chaired by both senator childs the republican of pennsylvania that is a defense lawyer and the criminal case brought by the special prosecutor. Informing the public of providing factbased grounds for critical legislation. Investigations of organized crime, union busting, Union Corruption on wall street banking practices, the ku klux klan and vietnam are but a few areas that important societal changes have resulted from congressional inquiries. I have a appreciatio appreciatie invaluable benefit to our society of congressional inquiries that have allowed disinfecting some light into dark corners that otherwise might remain hidden from the view. And of course it is the result of the oversight responsibilities that there is sometimes a bit of dumping and bruising with prosecutors function of the bringing lawbreakers to justice. Sometimes highprofile investigations prosecution has been too focused on detecting prosecutorial options to appreciate the larger issues of the publics right to know. They went to block the Senate Watergate committee to granting immunity to john dean. This wasnt the finest hour. If i forward with immunity and provided congress with the publiand the publicwith criticat needed to know about misconduct of extraordinary scope at the highest reaches of government. It was corroborated by president ial tape recordings. In spite of Senate Watergate committee and approved essential Building Blocks to our work in the special Prosecutors Office and completing the investigation and bringing indictments and trials. Despite procedures since watergate, the lesson remains that sometimes exposing serious public corruption. They will provide prosecutors all the flexibility they decide. They shouldnt proceed concurrently. The system works best when the Congressional Committees are in internal sync with the chair and Ranking Member speaking with one voice. It will be both appropriately aggressive and at the same time thoughtfully differential to the legitimate prosecutorial objectives. In my view, the best example of this kind of bipartisan cooperation was seen in the relationship between tom kane as the chairman of the 9 11 commission and lee hamilton as vice chair demonstrating how much intellectual energy and investigative firepower can be harnessed when political beings put the National Interest above the narrow party goals. In conclusion, unlike the congresss goal of educating and informing the public, prosecutors are bound by the rules that promote secrecy and discourage even criminalize extra judicial exposure of the work process indeed with tremendous power, prosecutors must have the experience and judgment to separate and exercise discretion in deciding to bring or not to bring charges. In the investigation of the ramifications of russian state interference in americas 2016 president ial election, congress has the responsibility to collect by the way of public hearings why this deserves serious attention. They have an additional obligation in my view they be permitted to complete the work that has been appointed to oversee including a fair and thorough investigation into the interference in the election and whether any u. S. Citizen was complicit or aided and abetted that interference. It must be made clear that serious constitutional remedies would follow any improper attempt to curtail or interfere with the special counsel. Thank you, and i thank the members of the subcommittee for your attention. Churning grassley, Ranking Member white house, thank you for inviting me to testify today. The mission has included working to strengthen the capacity to factbased oversight and the congressional oversight initiatives educated over 1,000 staffers during the past decade from both sides of the aisle and both chambers about the oversight powers and responsibilities of the congress. Thank you senator grassley for being a cohost of that work. As to the subject of the hearing let me be clear congress and the executive branch are capable of conducting concurrent investigations. It is essential to legislating in holding the executive Branch Accountable and ensuring the system of checks and balances is working. The president ial election demand the common understanding across the country on the fact of what did or did not happen and whether the rule of law is being properly followed in the damaging rift to the democracy. It is the role of the congress to provide the public with the fact. As the chairman mentioned, we released a report on the history of the congressional investigation that shows the Public Benefits in both the legislative and executive branch examines the same event and we identified four important elements for the successful investigations that vb bipartisan, have a clear scope that they have Leadership Support and the chairman hear evidence of that and forth as being well resourced which is something we can talk about in the qanda later. Investigations led by the special counsel can play a Critical Role but they are limited in scope and of course remain vulnerable to the executive branch pressure. Congress is positioned to consider the solutions to the systemic problems. Congressional committees investigated but iran contra 1996 campaignfinance and jack abram lobbying scandals. They need not occur if it be limited to the criminal law enforcement. The committees work led to the passage of improved campaignfinance laws and other landmark Good Governance reform legislation including the strength and information act, inspector generals act and the governors act. In the wake of the 1996 president ial election whether it made its way into the conference of candidates and Political Parties proceeded while the Justice Department successfully obtained convictions and guilty pleas from the same individuals under the same scrutiny. The Senate Investigation conducted an investigation with numerous prosecutions. As well as the creation of the congressional ethics. Its important to note that sometimes its more important to get to the bottom of a systemic problem and find solutions than it is to hold one or two individuals accountable in the criminal proceedings. In the affair to convictions are discussed before because of the granted immunity by congress. In pursuing its own inquiry instead of the Congress Must after consulting in the Justice Department determined for itself what the course is in the best interest of the nation. Congress can consider a broader set of issues including for the future. Significant Public Policy questions about the attempted interference in the 2016 elections will remain unanswer unanswered. For the application of justice to be politicized one of these questionthat thesequestions wily criminal prosecution and therefore i strongly encourage you to continue your work with confidence. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Thank you for the opportunity to offer my thoughts on the subject of todays hearing. I think i may be carrying calls and i talk about the overarching issue with the committees differ and abandoned anyway its investigations because i get the sense everybody has agreed that the committee should not for the reasons that should have been expressed by the speakers that have preceded me. The functions of th that the coe will perform are different from the functions that the criminal investigation performs. They are looking to gather the facts and report to the American People what happened and to inform and guide their own actions in terms of what legislation may be needed and what corrections and governmental action may be necessary. But the emphasis is forwardlooking. What can be done to safeguard the 2018 and 2010 elections by the other foreign powers to help our allies in europe from the same thing happening to them. Criminal investigation is obviously very different, they are backward looking, there is no interest in the Public Accounting for events. If people are not indicted it is the policy of the department of justice to say nothing about the circumstances surrounding their involvement if any in the events questioned and even successful prosecutions are likely to produce an overview of the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. They might get half of the pieces but you cant make out the picture with half of the pieces, whereas the committee hopefully conducts its investigations and would be in a position to paint a complete picture. The situation that exists on the statute. The council is limited for the attorney general and its confidential its not public. They cannot be served by the criminal investigation. And were it meets the expedition the congressional inquiry needs to proceed without delay. With the destruction of the finding by the admiral that occurred in november 1985 and the decision of the court of appeals in the case was in november of 1991, six years later. So it takes a while. We dont know how long the special counsels investigation but you cant count on a speedy resolution of the investigation. At the same time it cannot become divided of the prosecution. Thats what happened in the iran contra cases. Im told in part. Its hard to predict because the two judges can compound any prediction that is made. As a practical matter, immunity is the issue that poses the greatest risk to the success of the investigations. And im sure that youll find witnesses are unlikely to testify without the granting of the immunity and youre going to have to work in close cooperation with the special counsel and ive made some suggestions about mechanisms that may work for reducing the risk of immunity grants and often damage the prosecution we can talk about during the question and answer period. The point i want to close with a few may find there is an irreconcilable difference between the testimony for the crucial witness in the special counsels need to avoid in order to expose the successful prosecution and the responsibility for balancing the interest of the prosecution against the interest of full disclosure for the legislative purposes. Thank you, very much. Im professor at the city of baltimore law school. In 1987 i was on the Iran Contra Committee as the deputy chief counsel. For four years here in 11 years in the other place when mr. Frey talked about which counsels were over optimistic about the way that immunity would play out in the court, im one of the people he was talking about. Of the iran contra scandal involved in short the National Security council staff, principally over north and poindexter did off the books investigations contrary to the law coming into the ultra taboo technology of trading with iran on the arms for hostages. Like the imperious today there were two types of thing on as explained by committees like the ones here and by special prosecutors now down there. There are certain problems i want to deal with in the congressional investigations not immunity that make trouble for the investigations and a special counsels. I dont regard them as particularly serious in practice. For example, the financial defendants to get a kind of discovery by seeing the witnesses against them in public hearings, but that hearing is tactical and minimal and it does not change outcomes. The question by the special counsel and again by the investigative committees does create multiple statements and it could contain something inconsistent in them. Again, this is tactical and minimal. To cut to the point of most interest as mr. Dry laid out well, the witnesses in iran contra and probably in the russian thing will take the amendment and say they wont testify without immunity. In the case of two thirds of a full committee, two thirds of the committee you dont have to worry that you are going to trip into it because one senator or congressman is an enthusiast. You have to have the full committee. Its going to be solved through. We planned what we did back in iran contra working in consultation with the independent counsel as we have every expectation he would work in consultation with. Lets take out of the 26 witnesses that are immunized, the 24th are not all over north and John Poindexter whose testimony we needed and have done by immunity in large measure, witnesses who are not prosecution targets were likely to face prosecution take the fifth because they dont want for the personal reasons to testify. They were loyal back then to the people on the National Security si