Jordan, Meadows press intelligence chief on House Intel Russia probe transcripts

Two conservative House members are pressing Director of National Intelligence Dan CoatsDaniel (Dan) Ray CoatsHillicon Valley: Tim Cook visits White House | House hearing grapples with deepfake threat | Bill, Melinda Gates launch lobbying group | Tech turns to K-Street in antitrust fight | Lawsuit poses major threat to T-Mobile, Sprint merger Hillicon Valley: Tim Cook visits White House | House hearing grapples with deepfake threat | Bill, Melinda Gates launch lobbying group | Tech turns to K-Street in antitrust fight | Lawsuit poses major threat to T-Mobile, Sprint merger House Intel to take first major deep dive into threat of 'deepfakes' MORE about the status of the intelligence community's review of the dozens of transcripts from the House Intelligence Committee's Russia investigation.

Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the top Republican on the Oversight and Reform Committee, and Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) asked Coats in a letter Wednesday when he expects the classification review of all 53 of the panel's transcripts to be completed, how many have been reviewed to date, and for an explanation on why it has taken six months for these transcripts to become public.

Jordan and Meadows, who are not members of the Intelligence panel, say the transcripts "will advance our committee's oversight responsibilities and provide the American public with important transparency" as they continue to examine whether individuals at the Justice Department and FBI "deviated from apolitical prosecutorial and investigative norms during these investigations."

ADVERTISEMENT

"With the findings by the Special Counsel—that no associate of President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump cites tax cuts over judges as having biggest impact of his presidency Trump cites tax cuts over judges as having biggest impact of his presidency Ocasio-Cortez claps back at Trump after he cites her in tweet rejecting impeachment MORE's campaign coordinated with Russia to interfere in the 2016 presidential election—we see no further reason to delay," they write, according to a copy obtained by The Hill.

The information in these transcripts, they argue, are even more relevant following the conclusion of special counsel Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) Swan MuellerKamala Harris says her Justice Dept would have 'no choice' but to prosecute Trump for obstruction Kamala Harris says her Justice Dept would have 'no choice' but to prosecute Trump for obstruction Dem committees win new powers to investigate Trump MORE's Russia probe, in which he found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to a four-page letter Attorney General William BarrWilliam Pelham BarrAnticipation builds for final Supreme Court rulings Anticipation builds for final Supreme Court rulings Trump's Justice Department should change its tune on antitrust policy MORE gave to Congress late last month. 

"As the Justice Department prepares the Special Counsel's report for public disclosure, full transparency demands the public disclosure of HPSCI's witness interviews on the same subject matter," they wrote, referring to the House Intelligence Committee.

Republicans celebrated following Barr's letter on Mueller's report, claiming it exonerates Trump.

“I have not seen the Mueller report. I have not read the Mueller report. I won. No collusion, no obstruction. I won,” Trump told reporters on the South Lawn before traveling to Texas on Wednesday.

“As far as I’m concerned I don’t care about the Mueller report. I've been totally exonerated,” the president said.

But Democrats have seized on Barr's conclusion with Deputy Attorney General Rod RosensteinRod RosensteinTrump: I didn't fire Mueller since firings 'didn't work out too well' for Nixon Trump: I didn't fire Mueller since firings 'didn't work out too well' for Nixon GOP group urges Republicans to speak out on obstruction claims against Trump in new ad MORE that Mueller's investigation did not reach the threshold to charge Trump of obstruction of justice, even after Mueller declined to make a judgment either way.

They suggest possible nefarious motivations for Barr's involvement, claiming the Trump appointee campaigned for his job and is likely seeking to protect the president — further reason, they argue, for them to review the full Mueller report and its underlying evidence.

The fight for the full report, however, is already gearing up as Democrats vow to get the full report while Barr remains firm that there is certain information he will not turn over to Congress, including grand jury information.