South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham said he would withhold his vote on all measures that Republican leaders need his support to pass until the CIA briefs senators about the intelligence community’s findings related to Saudi Arabia’s murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
“If that briefing is not given soon, it’s going to be hard for me to vote for any spending bill,” Graham began, following a meeting on Wednesday between senators and Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
Prodded for more specificity on what seemed to be a spur-of-the-moment threat, the senator answered, “I’m talking about any key vote. Anything that you need me for to get out of town, I ain’t doing it until we hear from the CIA.”
Mattis and Pompeo were on Capitol Hill to brief senators on the Yemeni civil war, as well to push back on an effort that would end the United States’ role supporting the Saudi-led coalition in the conflict. Graham says he will not support that resolution.
But the briefing did not include CIA director Gina Haspel, which prompted Graham to criticize it as “inadequate.” Graham has called on Haspel to provide lawmakers with intelligence related to Khashoggi’s killing last month, citing reports that the agency has concluded that Saudi leader Mohammed bin Salman was responsible for the operation. The administration has downplayed and avoided confirming that assessment, and a number of senators said on Wednesday it was their understanding that the White House did not want Haspel to meet with lawmakers alongside Pompeo and Mattis.
Roll Call’s Niels Lesniewski pointed out to Graham that one of the spending bills included in the next round of funding is Graham’s own bill to fund the State Department and foreign operations. “Well, if I were them, I would give me the briefing,” he shot back.
“I want to get briefed, OK?” he told a handful of reporters. “From the body’s point of view, this is an unacceptable outcome. We have oversight of these people.”
When Graham walked away from the cameras, I asked him if his vow meant that he would vote against President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees going forward. “Whatever gives me the most leverage,” he answered.
