Virginia’s U.S. Senator Mark Warner, appearing on CNN yesterday morning, stated that as the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the danger the Trump administration represents to U.S. elections, including this fall’s critical mid-terms, is greater now than anything a hostile foreign power presents.
Warner’s alarming comments came in response to the statement reiterated by President Trump that the Republican Party should “take over and run” national elections, despite the blatant unconstitutionality of the suggestion, as well as the unlawful FBI-led seizure of 2020 presidential election materials from an election center in Fulton County, Georgia last week.
Warner is slated to hold a telephone briefing for the Virginia press today.
In remarks made earlier this week, Warner remarked on “the alarming news that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard facilitated direct contact between President Trump and FBI agents involved in a politically convenient federal investigation, as well as the president’s recent public calls for Republicans to ‘take over’ and ‘nationalize’ elections.”
According to Warner, “The strength of our democracy depends upon clear lines between politics and law enforcement, between intelligence and criminal investigations, and most importantly between the White House and the ballot box. What happened in Georgia last week erased those lines, they are simply unacceptable. And this is even a more heightened concern after the president’s comments last night. And let me be clear about why this matters.
“Regardless of what has been stated, this is not about the 2020 election. That election has been litigated, audited, recounted, and repeatedly upheld by courts and election officials, including lots and lots of Republican election officials. This is frankly about what comes next.
“It is deeply alarming that the president has called for Republicans, his words, to take over and nationalize voting in multiple states. That statement alone makes clear that this threat to our election security, the basic premise of our democracy, is forward-looking to 2026, into 2028 and candidly to the institutions that safeguard our democracy.
“This is about whether these same tactics we’re seeing now, or worse, will be used to disrupt free-and-fair elections. One of the reasons why as we think about ICE reform, the notion of roving ICE patrols parading around election polling stations is a very real and legitimate concern.
“And truthfully, as we’ve seen, it is about whether the very institutions meant to protect our democracy will be misused to upheaval. So, let’s be clear. It is inappropriate for a sitting president to personally involve himself in a criminal investigation tied to an election he lost. It is inappropriate for the president to advocate for actions that are wholly at odds with the Constitution and two and a half centuries of state and local elections.
“It is inappropriate for the director of national intelligence to insert herself into a domestic law enforcement operation far outside her statutory role. And it is profoundly inappropriate for either of them to blur the lines between intelligence, law enforcement, and partisan politics. But that is exactly what happened last week in Fulton County.”
“As vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I want to underscore a core legal boundary. US intelligence agencies are structured to operate overseas, not on domestic soil. The National Security Act and other laws exist precisely to prevent election officials or intelligence officials from surveilling or intervening in domestic political matters. I am old enough to remember that a lot of this came about because of actions of the Nixon administration back in the 60s. Those actions that literally resulted in the creation of the oversight committee that I now sat as chair and now vice chair. We know when intelligence personnel are inserted into domestic criminal investigations, especially one launched under such a thin veil of legitimacy, it raises serious legal and constitutional questions and politicizes an institution that must remain neutral and apolitical.
“The director of national intelligence does not conduct criminal investigations. She has no role in executing search warrants. And she does not belong on the scene of a domestic FBI search, particularly one tied to the president’s personal grievances carried out under the pretense of normal law enforcement.”
“Now, Director Gabbard argued that her presence was just justified by broad statutory authority. But broad authority to analyze intelligence is not a license to participate in a sham investigation. And it certainly does not justify facilitating direct contact between the frontline FBI agents doing this investigation directly to the president of the United States. That phone call alone should concern every American because it didn’t occur in a vacuum.”
