// 7/31/17 //
Jared Kushner met with the Senate Intelligence Committee behind closed doors, answering questions about his interactions with Russian officials (WaPo).
- “I did not collude,” Kushner stated after the meeting (NYT).
- Kushner’s prepared remarks before the Senate committee are here.
- Kushner blames everyone around him for his failings, and the notion that his legal team is to blame for his security clearance form omissions is “bizarre,” writes Leah Litman at Take Care.
- Kushner is likely a “civil officer” under the Constitution, which makes him susceptible to impeachment, notes Ryan Goodman at Just Security.
Mr. Kushner then faced a second day of questioning on Capitol Hill, this time in front of the House Intelligence Committee (ABC, The Hill).
- Kushner’s response was conspicuously silent in at least one area, and, because he testified in closed session, we do not know how his answers held up, write Susan Hennessey and Benjamin Wittes at Foreign Policy.
- Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti dissected Kushner’s statement from yesterday at Just Security.
- Kushner’s statement provides additional material useful in determining the Trump campaign’s culpability under campaign finance laws, writes Bob Bauer at Just Security.
The Senate Judiciary Committee issued and then dropped a subpoena against Paul Manafort after Manafort agreed to testify before the committee (Politico).
The Senate and House have approved new sanctions on Russia and limited President Trump’s ability to rescind them (NYT, Politico).
In light of a report about U.S. intelligence agencies intercepting communications in which Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak recounted campaign-related conversations with now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Helen Klein Murillo and Steve Vladeck break down the perjury case against Sessions (Lawfare).
Russia is not our “enemy” under the Treason Clause, and accusations of treason should be treated with enormous caution, writes Carlton Lawson at Take Care.
The Federal Election Commission must not shy away from the Russia probe, writes Stephen Spaulding at The Hill.
President Obama reclaimed the pardon power as a principled tool of the presidency; President Trump would undo that progress with a self-pardon, writes Mark Osler at Take Care.
- We should think about presidential indictment, self-pardon, obstruction of justice, and other thorny questions with the traditional tools of constitutional interpretation, says Daniel Hemel at Take Care.
- Self-pardon — if upheld — would pave the way for presidential impunity, suggests Andrew Wright at ACS Blog.