A Single Republican Is Blocking the Appointment of a Key Intelligence Official

It’s all about the Trump-Russia probe.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) at a February 2 hearingBill Clark/CQ Roll Call

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Sen. Chuck Grassley is once again blocking the confirmation of a nominee for a top counterintelligence job in an effort to win access to sensitive material on the origin of the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation.

The Iowa Republican imposed a hold in June on the nomination of Bill Evanina as director of the National Intelligence and Security Center, an office under Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats. Grassley, who at the time chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee, said last year that he would object to a vote on Evanina’s confirmation until the Justice Department gave his committee information on its probe into contacts between President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia. 

Grassley renewed the hold Tuesday after Evanina was renominated and approved unanimously by the Senate intelligence committee last week. The senator did so even though he no longer chairs the judiciary committee, where he oversaw the Justice Department; he now heads the finance committee instead. What’s more, the senator says his objection “is not intended to question the credentials of Mr. Evanina in any way.”

Grassley’s objection is instead part of a dispute with his former Senate Republican colleague, Coats, who Grassley says has instructed the Justice Department not to give Grassley the information he wants. “The administration’s continued, ongoing, and blatant lack of cooperation has forced my hand,” Grassley said in a statement placed in the Congressional Record on Tuesday.

Critics say the hold is also an indication of how far some congressional Republicans will go to question the basis of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. “Bill Evanina is an extraordinarily qualified public servant and it’s frankly ridiculous that his Senate confirmation continues to be delayed over unrelated political requests from a member of the president’s own party,” Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the top Democrat on the intelligence committee, said in a statement Wednesday. “From brazen Russian espionage, to Chinese IP theft, to insider threats, our country is facing an enormous number of thorny and complex counterintelligence challenges. We need a Senate-confirmed leader to head our nation’s counterintelligence strategy.”

Last year, Grassley cited multiple reasons for his hold, including apparent references to Evanina in text messages between former FBI agent Peter Strzok, who was fired by the bureau in August, and Lisa Page, a former bureau attorney. Strzok—who worked on the bureau’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server and initially on the Trump-Russia probe—and Page famously disparaged Trump in some of their messages, but their references to Evanina were routine. And Evanina satisfied that part of Grassley’s concerns through a classified letter he sent the senator last summer, according to a Grassley spokesman. But Grassley has continued blocking the nomination because he says the Justice Department refused to give him information on origins of the Trump-Russia probe, including the identity of confidential FBI informants. Grassley says the FBI already gave this information to the House intelligence committee last year after a long fight but that the bureau would not provide it to him. 

Michael Zona, a Grassley spokesman, said Grassley still objects to confirming Evanina, despite no longer chairing the judiciary committee, because “oversight responsibilities aren’t just for chairmen of committees of jurisdiction, but all members of Congress.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell could overcome Grassley’s roadblock by holding a roll-call vote to confirm Evanina rather than the simpler unanimous consent process the Senate often uses to confirm noncontroversial nominees. But McConnell has so far been unwilling to devote Senate floor time to the nomination.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate