Thread by @BBuchman_CNS

Nadler to Cordero: why did you find Trump's willingness to accept oppo research from a foreign govt so concerning?

Cordero: In terms of his responsibilities as president, he is responsible for overseeing the nat sec of the US. Rec'ing foreign assistance has been recognized, throughout history of the entire country, to undermine the Constitution.

Nadler: Is it likely or plausible that his Trump's statements last week will influence what happens in the 2020 election?

Cordero: "Of course, they're paying attention to whatever he or his advisers say. when they do, this is not just a signal but an invitation to any Russian or other intel service out there that wants to influence democratic processes."

Nadler to Prakash: I disagreed w/you on many pts, but fully agree the Constitution doensnt grant POTUS any immunity from prosecution. Would you agree that WH advisers cannot claim their absolutely immune from testifying based on their argument that they are POTUS alter egos?

Prakash: prev. admins have done it and Congress has been unable to stop them. People who work for POTUS should be forced to testify before Congress. Says he does not believe exec privilege exists in terms of preventing testimony before congress.

Ranking Republican Collins is back up, and is still irate about the way today's hearing unfolded. Asking each panelist to tell them when they were invited to testify. All have said since last week. Collins is upset he prepared for one hearing and now there's a different one.

Sidebar: It would seem that since the Mueller Report is talked of so often in Congress that it is in "re-runs," according to Rep. Collins, that he would be able to pivot this morning without much issue and ask questions about Russian interference etc.

Collins says the committee could have held a mark-up hearing on legislation to deter foreign interference instead of this today.

For the record, that could have taken place at any time before today.

Rep Jackson Lee says during the Hope Hicks interview yesterday there was significant reliance on claiming executive privilege and she thanks Prakash for pointing out today that this doesnt apply to congressional oversight in this respect.

Cordero emphasizes that according to *current* intel assessment, the foreign interference wasn't left behind in 2016. It's still happening now. It is an active problem.

"It is inconceivable that a presidential candidate would be willing to receive information that the campaign had reason to know was coming from Russian government supported efforts. " - Cordero

"In other words, the work that is laid out in SPC report, has a variety of examples of how the campaign knew it was coming. It would have been more understandable if the campaign said they didn't understand."

But there was Rick Gates, Cordero notes, and his stmt to Mueller about staging a press strategy for the WikiLeaks release.

Rep Chabot, R-OH is railing against Dems, saying they refuse to move forward on impeachment because they know it will blow up in their face politically so now we're having "hearing after hearing about nothing"
"John Dean, Hope Hicks, who is next, Sean Hannity?"

Rep Chabot asks Paraksh to describe corrupt intent. Prakash says itdepends on why you think POTUS is doing what he's doing. If Trump is thinking I'm worried about how foreign leaders will look at him, that's not corrupt, but if doing it for his sole benefit, that's different.

Rep Cohen now railing that Collins or other GOP would say these are hearings about "nothing."

Cohen asks about Cordero's stmt about it being disqualifying if a campaign took foreign information. Says: "if this committee gets into an impeachment inquiry, are these areas that should be looked into?
Cordero: Yes, if it did initiate that...

"There's a variety of things that could be looked into. one of the most important would be the matters discussed in Vol 2 of the report. There are 4-6 particular instances of obstruction that could be reviewed." - Cordero

"The campaign's willingness to receive foreign assistance, be the beneficiary of a foreign intel operation and more significantly, current stmts indicating a current/future willingness" must be reviewed.

Rep Jim Jordan up. Q put to Prakash over constitutional law.
When AG testified before Senate he said there was a "failure of leadership at the upper echelon of the FBI" & there was improper spying at FBI. "Unauthorized surveillance and political surveillance" Troubled by this?

Prakash: I wasn't here to talk about that but I think all should be concerned about this. If this admin did it to the democratic nominee, I'd be concerned about it as well.

Rep Lofgren notes in the report, there were 272 contacts between Russian govt and Trump campaign, 38 meetings, all told.
That wouldn't happen w/o Russian gov't countenancing that, she asks Alina Polyakova, dir. of the global democracy at the Brookings Institution,

Polyakova affirms this. Lofgren moves to Manafort, says he was cozying up to his former "sugar daddy in the Ukraine." He shared polling data w/Kilimnik at the same time Russians bought ads to benefit Trump. "Never seen anything like this before"

Polyakova says its clear that from the Mueller investigation, that members of the campaign were eager to publicize WikiLeaks info when it was dumped

Rep Johnson, D-GA. asks would it be reasonable to open an investigation into foreign influence when a foreign govt reports to authorities that a Trump campaign official has stated he has information that Russia has dirt it wants to share with them?

Does that serve as an adequate basis to open an ivnestigation?
Cordero: Yes, there are guidelines + predication, they must have reliable information from a foreign govt.

Johnson: That came to US authorities on May 6 2016 and it wasn't until Oct 2016 that feds were made aware of the Steele Dossier.
Again:
The counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign activities began prior to the Steele Dossier being revealed to the authorities.

Cordero: The Steele Dossier was not the basis of the investigation. The systematic activities by Russian intel and agencies, show there was substantial evidence that justified opening the investigation. It would have been a dereliction of duty if they had not investigated.

Rep Gaetz has been railing for over three minute, asks for Cordero to explain why she wrote an article about controlling flow of immigration. She answers by saying, she may have wrote about it but nowhere in her article did she suggest a border wall as a suggestion to that etc.

Gatez is dubbed out of order, though he ignores that, keeps talking over as Nadler is gaveling.

Rep Deutch to Gaetz: we'd love to talk about something else, but notes Dems can't get straight answers out of Trump officials or in some cases, answers at all. Note: the lawyers objecting to Qs posed to Hope HIcks yesterday

Deutch asks Cordero to explain why accepting foreign help violates oath of office.
Cordero: "It goes back to Washington's farewell address that warns of foreign interference. It is contrary to a president who is supposed to adhere to and has an oath to the Constitution.

"That is why the information in Vol II - the obstruction - is so important because it matters what the allegations of obstruction are about. The report lays out a series of potentially obstructive acts POTUS took to derail Mueller's investigation & the SPC invstgn was....

about Russian foreign interference... He thought he was obstructing an inquiry into matters that would impact him or members of his inner circle personally but what he was actually obstructing was the government's investigation into foreign interference." - Cordero

I must pull back from live-tweeting for now but you can continue to watch the stream here: c-span.org/video/?461918-….
I'll have a story coming up soon for @CourthouseNews.

Story up.
courthousenews.com/gop-digs-for-d…