A bipartisan group of senators is demanding that President Donald Trump explain why he fired the intelligence community’s top watchdog, writing in a letter late Wednesday that the president’s stated reasoning was “not sufficient.”

The letter, signed by eight senators from both parties, represents Congress’ clearest denunciation yet of Trump’s decision to sack Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community inspector general.

“Congressional intent is clear that an expression of lost confidence, without further explanation, is not sufficient to fulfill the requirements of the statute,” the lawmakers, led by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), wrote in the letter to Trump.

The senators cited a 2008 law mandating that the president provide Congress with a detailed explanation of his decision to fire Atkinson, who defied Trump last year when he turned over to lawmakers a whistleblower complaint that led to the president’s impeachment.

Last weekend, Trump defended the firing of Atkinson, calling him a “total disgrace” over his handling of the whistleblower complaint, which detailed Trump’s conversations with Ukraine’s president. Atkinson was required by law to transmit the complaint to the House and Senate intelligence committees.

In his letter informing lawmakers of Atkinson’s termination, Trump said only that he had lost confidence in Atkinson. That wasn’t enough for the senators.

“As supporters of the Inspector General community, and as advocates for government transparency and accountability, it is our responsibility to confirm that there are clear, substantial reasons for removal,” the senators wrote, asking for an explanation no later than April 13 and citing a 2008 Senate report about ensuring that watchdogs “are not removed for political reasons.”

The lawmakers also accused Trump of going around Congress when he placed Atkinson on administrative leave when he fired him, effectively sidestepping the mandatory 30-day notice to the congressional intelligence panels.

“By placing the IG on 30 days of administrative leave and naming an acting replacement, the administration has already effectively removed that IG and appears to have circumvented Congress’s role in this process,” the senators wrote.

They added that the purpose of the 30-day requirement was “to provide an opportunity for an appropriate dialogue with Congress in the event that the planned transfer or removal is viewed as an inappropriate or politically motivated attempt to terminate an effective inspector general.”

Democrats have condemned the firing as a dangerous abuse of power and act of political retribution, while some Republicans have criticized the move as unwarranted.

Trump has adopted an aggressive posture toward inspectors general, most recently criticizing the Health and Human Services Department’s watchdog over a report that revealed medical supply shortages and coronavirus testing issues across the country. The president also removed the acting Pentagon inspector general, Glenn Fine, from his post shortly after he was named to lead a watchdog panel overseeing implementation of the $2.2 trillion coronavirus relief package that Congress approved last month.

In their Wednesday letter, the senators said inspectors general should “only be removed when there is clear evidence of wrongdoing or failure to perform the duties of the office, and not for reasons unrelated to their performance, to help preserve IG independence.”

In addition to Grassley, two Republicans signed the Wednesday letter: Susan Collins of Maine and Mitt Romney of Utah, who both criticized Trump’s posture toward Ukraine. Romney was the only Republican to vote to convict the president in his impeachment trial.

The Democratic signers were Gary Peters of Michigan, Mark Warner of Virginia, Ron Wyden of Oregon, Dianne Feinstein of California and Jon Tester of Montana.

Senators are responding to President Donald Trump’s firing of the intelligence community’s top watchdog with a muddled message, with some calling for hearings and others saying lawmakers have far more important issues to tackle.

The scattershot response suggests Congress is unlikely to urgently address Trump’s decision to sack Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community’s inspector general — and it underscores how difficult it will be for the Senate and House to conduct oversight of the surprising firing, especially in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic.

But the matter is an urgent priority to some, including Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), who said the Senate should hold a hearing.

King, who sits on the powerful Senate Intelligence Committee, said officials such as Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell and Atkinson himself — whom Trump fired late Friday night — should be put under oath.

“It should be an open hearing to have members of the administration come forward and provide an explanation,” King, who caucuses with the Democrats, said in a phone interview, calling Trump’s decision to fire Atkinson “terrible on a lot of levels.”

Trump has defended the firing, telling reporters on Saturday during a White House coronavirus task force briefing that the longtime public official was a “total disgrace” for the way he handled a whistleblower complaint that led to the president’s impeachment.

But King cautioned that even a public hearing might not yield many answers because “this was a decision made principally by the president, probably without consulting much of anyone else.”

“We don’t need to know why he did it — he said it. The president yesterday said it!” King quipped.

A spokeswoman for Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the panel’s plans. The Senate is scheduled to return to regular session on April 20, but several senators have cast doubt on that timeline given the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has yet to comment on Atkinson’s removal.

Meanwhile, Atkinson released a lengthy statement Sunday night about his firing, asserting that Trump removed him simply for doing his job.

“It is hard not to think that the president’s loss of confidence in me derives from my having faithfully discharged my legal obligations as an independent and impartial Inspector General,” Atkinson wrote.

Democrats have condemned the firing as an abuse of power and a brazen act of politically motivated retribution by a president emboldened after the Senate acquitted him in his impeachment trial. Republicans have been tepid in their criticism of the action, but some, including Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, said the firing “demands an explanation,” while others largely deferred to the president’s unorthodox leadership style.

“Obviously those people serve at the pleasure of the president and as is usually the case, it’s not something that we have any control over,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), the GOP whip. “The president made it pretty clear why he did. But he has the prerogative. We don’t always have to agree with his actions. As we’ve learned in the past he’s going to do what he’s to do.”

Thune said it was too early to assess whether the firing was unwarranted: “I want to talk to the people who are close to it and get some context on it. I don’t understand it at this point. But that’s a question for another day when I can figure out what went into it.”

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), who presided over a pro forma session of the Senate on Monday morning, also said more information was needed.

“I think we should get more detail. I agree with that,” she said. “It’s such an odd time it’s hard to say how we’re going to get that info — I mean, you know what kind of priority that information is going to have — but I think that’ll all come out.”

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), a top Trump ally, said he was more consumed with reforming the foreign surveillance courts than Atkinson’s firing. But he also made clear it didn’t trouble him, either: “I don’t necessarily have any issues with it.”

“My view is that this is the president’s decision, it’s a decision that’s his to make. It doesn’t give me enormous heartburn,” Hawley said in an interview on Monday. “It’s not the main issue.”

President Donald Trump on Saturday defended his decision to fire the intelligence community’s top watchdog, calling the sacked official a “total disgrace” over his handling of a whistleblower complaint that led to the president’s impeachment.

“I thought he did a terrible job. Absolutely terrible,” Trump said of Michael Atkinson, who was let go from his role as the inspector general of the intelligence community on Friday night.

“He took this terrible, inaccurate whistleblower report and he brought it to Congress,” Trump added. The initial report was largely corroborated by witnesses testimony and the summary describing Trump’s phone call with the president of Ukraine, which was the subject of the whistleblower complaint.

Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump mused about House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) being the whistleblower’s “informer,” without citing evidence. Schiff was the public face of the House’s effort to impeach the president.

“They give this whistleblower a status that he doesn’t deserve. He’s a fake whistleblower,” Trump concluded. “And frankly, somebody ought to sue his ass off.”

Trump’s remarks underscore his deep, long-running disdain toward the officials and lawmakers whose actions led to his impeachment in the House over his alleged efforts to pressure Ukraine’s president to investigate his political rivals.

Despite Trump’s vehement defense of his decision to terminate Atkinson, some Republican senators expressed uneasiness with the president’s actions and praised Atkinson.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, for example, said the firing of Atkinson “demands an explanation.”

The Iowa Republican, who crafted the nation’s whistleblower protection statutes, did not criticize Trump for firing Atkinson, as several top Democrats did when Trump relieved Atkinson of his duties late Friday night. But he said the Trump administration should explain the move in greater detail.

“[Inspectors general] help drain the swamp, so any removal demands an explanation,” Grassley said in a statement on Saturday. “Congress has been crystal clear that written reasons must be given when IGs are removed for a lack of confidence. More details are needed from the administration.”

Also on Saturday, the office of the director of national intelligence announced that Thomas Monheim, who has served in top legal positions throughout the intelligence community, was named acting inspector general.

In a letter to the House and Senate intelligence committees late Friday, Trump informed lawmakers that he was terminating Atkinson because he no longer had confidence in him.

Atkinson drew strong criticism from Trump’s allies after he provided Congress with the whistleblower complaint that detailed Trump’s interactions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, among other actions by White House and State Department officials.

POLITICO reported on Saturday that Atkinson sent a letter to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) last month in which he said the past six months were “a searing time for whistleblowers,” and he criticized those who have failed to defend whistleblowers — without mentioning the president.

“Those repeated assurances of support for whistleblowers in ordinary matters are rendered meaningless if whistleblowers actually come forward in good faith with information concerning an extraordinary matter and are allowed to be vilified, threatened, publicly ridiculed, or — perhaps even worse — utterly abandoned by fair weather whistleblower champions,” Atkinson wrote in the letter to Schumer.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) praised Atkinson on Saturday for his “professionalism and responsiveness,” but did not mention the circumstances of Atkinson’s firing.

“Like any political appointee, the Inspector General serves at the behest of the Executive,” Burr said. “However, in order to be effective, the IG must be allowed to conduct his or her work independent of internal or external pressure.”

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a moderate who often criticizes Trump’s conduct, said Atkinson’s removal was “not warranted” and that Trump’s explanation was not “persuasive.”

“While I recognize that the president has the authority to appoint and remove Inspectors General, I believe Inspector General Atkinson served the Intelligence Community and the American people well, and his removal was not warranted,” Collins said in a statement.

Top Democrats strongly condemned the move, dubbing it an abuse of power and an act of politically motivated retaliation. Michael Horowitz, who chairs the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, lauded Atkinson for his “integrity, professionalism, and commitment to the rule of law.”

“That includes his actions in handling the Ukraine whistleblower complaint, which the then Acting Director of National Intelligence stated in congressional testimony was done ‘by the book’ and consistent with the law,” Horowitz added.

A congressional source said that while the House and Senate intelligence committees were given the 30-day notice of Atkinson’s removal as required by law, he was immediately placed on administrative leave, meaning that his tenure effectively ended Friday night.

Burgess Everett contributed to this report.

Sen. Mitt Romney will vote in favor of a subpoena seeking records about the work Joe Biden’s son Hunter did for the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma, a spokeswoman for the Utah Republican said on Friday.

Romney’s decision comes after several days of expressing dismay over the Senate Homeland Security Committee’s investigation targeting the Bidens, even suggesting on Thursday that the panel shouldn’t even be looking into the issue.

But after securing certain commitments from the committee’s chairman, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Romney has decided to support the subpoena when the panel votes on it next Wednesday — all but ensuring it will be issued.

“Senator Romney has expressed his concerns to Chairman Johnson, who has confirmed that any interview of the witness would occur in a closed setting without a hearing or public spectacle,” Romney’s spokeswoman Liz Johnson said. “He will therefore vote to let the chairman proceed to obtain the documents that have been offered.”

Romney has said in recent days that the committee’s investigation into the Bidens has the “appearance” of being politically motivated, given Biden’s resurgence in the Democratic presidential primary. Romney was the only Republican who voted to convict President Donald Trump in his impeachment trial last month, saying he believed Trump violated his oath of office when he pressured the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens.

“There’s no question the appearance is not good,” Romney told reporters on Thursday, later adding: “I would prefer that investigations are done by an independent, nonpolitical body.”

The subpoena seeks documents from a former consultant for Blue Star, a Democratic public affairs firm, as part of the committee’s investigation into conflict-of-interest claims surrounding the younger Biden’s role on the board of Burisma. The ex-consultant, Andrii Telizhenko, has leveled unsubstantiated claims of coordination between the Ukrainian government and the Democratic National Committee in 2016.

The committee has an 8-6 Republican majority, meaning that if Romney were to oppose the subpoena, it would not be issued. The other seven GOP members of the panel are likely to vote in support of the subpoena.

Democrats have said such an investigation is politically motivated and could even aid Russian disinformation efforts. Some Republicans, too, have raised concerns about the type of information the committee receives as part of its probe, including the possibility that some of it is connected to Russian intelligence.

Later Friday, the committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, sent a letter to Johnson calling for classified briefings about Telizhenko ahead of the subpoena vote. Peters said members of his staff recently “informed the FBI that they had questions about Mr. Telizhenko that could only be asked in a classified setting, and the FBI agreed to provide the committee with that opportunity.”

Peters similarly called for intelligence briefings on whether foreign actors are trying to use the committee’s investigation to interfere in the 2020 presidential election.

Johnson has insisted that his probe has nothing to do with the presidential election. But on Wednesday, a day after Biden’s Super Tuesday rout, he said he would likely release an interim report on the investigation within one to two months.

“If I were a Democrat primary voter, I’d want these questions satisfactorily answered before I cast my final vote,” Johnson said.

And Trump heightened Democrats’ criticisms of the effort when the president said in a Fox News interview earlier this week that he would use the Burisma issue against Biden in the general election if the former vice president becomes the Democratic nominee.

A Republican effort to subpoena records about Joe Biden and his son Hunter could be derailed amid concerns from at least one GOP senator that the push appears politically motivated.

The Senate Homeland Security Committee is set to vote next Wednesday on a subpoena for records from a Democratic public relations firm related to the panel’s investigation of conflict-of-interest allegations against the Bidens.

But Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), a member of the panel, has hinted that he could vote against issuing the subpoena, noting the committee’s investigation might look political in nature given Biden’s resurgence and the increasing likelihood that he’ll become the Democratic presidential nominee.

“There’s no question the appearance is not good,” Romney told reporters, adding that he is still “considering” his vote.

Republicans hold a slim 8-6 majority, and if just one GOP senator joins all Democrats, it would mean a 7-7 tie that would result in a failure to issue the subpoena.

Romney’s concerns appeared to be heightened on Thursday after President Donald Trump declared in a Fox News interview Wednesday night that he would seek to use the issue against Biden if he secures the Democratic nomination.

Romney suggested Thursday that the panel shouldn’t even be looking into the issue.

“I would prefer that investigations are done by an independent, nonpolitical body,” said Romney, who split with his party when he voted to convict Trump in the impeachment trial.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), the committee’s chairman, declined to comment on Romney’s views but said he sees “no reason why anybody would object” to the subpoena, which seeks documents from Blue Star, a Democratic public affairs firm, about Hunter Biden’s role on the board of a Ukrainian energy company, Burisma. It would be the first subpoena as part of the committee’s probe.

Johnson’s Democratic counterpart, Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, has opposed the committee’s investigation and the subpoena.

Peters has raised concerns about the veracity of the information the committee receives — in particular, whether it’s part of a Russia disinformation campaign. Several Republicans — including Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — have expressed similar worries both in private and in public.

“Quite frankly, the Homeland Security Committee should be focusing on issues related to homeland security,” Peters said. When asked about whether he thinks he can defeat the subpoena effort, he said: “I think it’s uncertain. I don’t know how it’s going to go right now.”

Peters said he hasn’t yet talked about the subpoena with Romney, but said he was likely to speak directly with him before Wednesday’s vote in an effort to sway him.

Another potential swing vote, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), said he, too, remains undecided and was unable to review the documents as of Thursday morning because he was chairing a hearing.

“I want to be supportive of Chairman Johnson and be sure that we’re getting the right information. It should be objective information, and let the American people decide,” said Portman, who voted to acquit Trump in the impeachment trial but was critical of his conduct.

Asked about Trump’s comments about the Burisma issue, Portman said: “That doesn’t surprise me.”

A source familiar with the matter, though, said Portman is leaning toward supporting the subpoena. Johnson has told colleagues that his effort is aimed simply at gathering information.

Marianne LeVine and Martin Matishak contributed to this report.

The top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee has privately expressed concerns about his colleagues’ corruption investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden, further exposing divisions within the GOP over whether to continue pursuing an effort that led in part to President Donald Trump’s impeachment.

In a Dec. 5 meeting, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) told the leaders of the Senate Homeland Security and Finance committees — Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Chuck Grassley of Iowa, respectively — that their probe targeting Biden could aid Russian efforts to sow chaos and distrust in the U.S. political system, according to two congressional sources familiar with the meeting.

The meeting took place as the House was charging forward with impeachment articles against Trump over an alleged effort to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate his political rivals, including the former vice president and his son Hunter. And it underscores disagreements among Senate Republicans over the merits of a Biden investigation.

A spokeswoman for Burr declined to comment. Representatives for Johnson did not return multiple requests for comment. After publication of this story, Taylor Foy, a Grassley spokesman, said “we do not have a record of any meeting on Dec. 5” with either Burr or Intelligence Committee staffers about the Biden investigation.

When asked whether he has met or worked with Burr on the Biden probe, Grassley said earlier Thursday: “No, I haven’t. And I haven’t had any conversation with him either.” Johnson did not answer directly, only saying: “We talk about things.”

Burr has rarely spoken publicly about the issues surrounding the impeachment of Trump. And his exchange with Johnson and Grassley was not the only time Burr purportedly has expressed such concerns to his Republican colleagues.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has hinted at similar unease with the Biden investigation, and he has said that some of those concerns were relayed to him by Burr — in particular, the source of the information the committee obtains.

“I called the attorney general this morning and Richard Burr, the chairman of the Intel Committee, and they told me, ‘take very cautiously anything coming out of the Ukraine against anybody,’” Graham said during a Feb. 9 appearance on CBS’ Face the Nation.

Attorney General William Barr established an intake process earlier this month for documents relating to Ukraine that may be produced by Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney who was leading the push to spur Ukraine-led investigations of the Bidens. Graham said that process should determine whether the information is valid.

“Any documents coming out of the Ukraine against any American, Republican or Democrat, need to be looked at by the intelligence services, who has expertise I don't because Russia is playing us all like a fiddle,” Graham added.

Graham’s panel has declined to participate in the Johnson-Grassley investigation, but the South Carolina Republican has said there are legitimate conflict-of-interest questions over Hunter Biden’s role on the board of a Ukrainian energy company, Burisma.

Burr, for his part, has pledged to seek an interview with the whistleblower whose formal complaint sparked the House’s impeachment inquiry.

Some conservatives interpreted Burr’s posture as an effort to investigate allegations that the whistleblower was biased against Trump and worked with congressional Democrats — claims that House Republicans have tried to pursue. But sources familiar with the effort said it is focused more on reforming the whistleblower process and protecting individuals who come forward to expose potential abuses within the government. And Burr himself has said he won’t “relitigate” the events that led to Trump’s impeachment.

Democrats, too, are warning of a potential Russian disinformation effort at the heart of the Biden investigation. Lawmakers have pointed to Russia’s attempts to hack Burisma, which could indicate that the Kremlin, too, was looking for dirt on the Bidens.

“I think it’s amazing that people are still potentially viewing manipulated Ukrainian information. That is not in our national security interest,” Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner (D-Va.) said. “There is plenty in the public domain that Russia was behind a lot of these fables and stories.”

As part of their investigation, Johnson and Grassley have requested documents and transcribed interviews. Some of those documents were produced by the State Department last week, and the committees are reviewing them. But investigators have yet to secure commitments from potential witnesses or issue subpoenas.

“We wait until we get all the information,” Grassley said on Thursday. “I don’t want to threaten subpoenas until I know that they’re going to be used.”

Trump’s allies have openly encouraged such an investigation, arguing that the corruption claims against Biden are legitimate.

“It’s within their jurisdiction,” Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), a close Trump ally, said of the probe. “And if they want to move forward with it, I think it’s a good thing.”

But others aren’t so sure. Asked if he supports the investigation, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) appeared to distance himself from it.

“I don’t know whether there’s any there there. I don’t know that they do either,” said Romney, who was the lone Republican to vote to convict Trump in the Senate’s impeachment trial.

“And they want to apparently determine whether there is something of significance or not,” Romney added. “So they’re certainly welcome to take a look. That’s their choice. It’s not one I’m carrying out.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told a trio of U.S. senators last week that he would continue to steer clear of President Donald Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, according to one of the senators.

“Zelensky clearly doesn’t really want to talk about this, and I don’t blame him,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wrote in a Medium post detailing his meeting in Kyiv on Friday with Zelensky and two Republican senators, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and John Barrasso of Wyoming.

Murphy asked Zelensky whether he was “still feeling pressure” to aid Giuliani’s push for investigations targeting Trump’s political rivals, noting Giuliani’s efforts in Ukraine have not abated.

“But he tells us that, though Giuliani has long wanted a meeting with him, he has always stayed clear of Giuliani and intends to keep it that way,” Murphy wrote.

Murphy’s account of the meeting comes two weeks after the Senate acquitted Trump on charges that he solicited foreign interference in the 2020 presidential election by dispatching Giuliani to Ukraine to pressure the country to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, among other political adversaries. The inquiry revealed, in part, that Giuliani sought a meeting with Zelensky last year with Trump’s knowledge and consent.

The objective of the Friday sit-down in Kyiv, according to Murphy, was to “send a signal that there is no distance between” Democrats and Republicans when it comes to U.S. support for Ukraine, a beleaguered ally that continues to fight Russian incursions to its east. Several lawmakers have expressed concern that the impeachment saga was further fraying the U.S.-Ukraine relationship and undermining U.S. interests in the region.

Murphy and Johnson began quietly making preparations for the trip during the Senate’s impeachment trial. Murphy said he was restless during a red-eye flight to the region on Thursday as he contemplated how he would tell Zelensky that it would be “disastrous” for Ukraine if he involved himself with Giuliani.

“I felt like I wouldn’t be doing my job if I didn’t once again remind Zelensky of the damage he could do to the country’s reputation if he ever succumbed to the pressure,” Murphy wrote. “I couldn’t sleep as I tried to figure out the tactful way to continue to make this case.”

Murphy indicated that he was satisfied with Zelensky’s response, adding that the Ukrainian leader “has no intention of getting involved in American politics any more than he already has, unintentionally.”

Later, Murphy wrote, Zelensky began speaking English and quipped about his past life as an entertainer in Ukraine.

“As an actor, I always dreamed of becoming famous in America,” Zelensky said, according to Murphy. “And now I’m famous in America. But not the way I wanted!”

After meeting with Zelensky, the senators traveled to Munich for an annual security conference. Murphy revealed in his blog post that he met on the sidelines of the gathering with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif.

Murphy said he sought to make clear to Zarif that any further attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq “will be perceived as an unacceptable escalation” in the aftermath of a U.S. strike that killed a top Iranian general, Qassem Soleimani, and Iran’s response attack on a base in Iraq that wounded dozens of American soldiers.

“I cannot conduct diplomacy on behalf of the whole of the U.S. government, and I don’t pretend to be in a position to do so,” Murphy wrote. “But if Trump isn’t going to talk to Iran, then someone should.”

Trump responded later Tuesday, suggesting without evidence that Murphy had violated the Logan Act, which bars private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. Trump said he wants to know what Murphy and Zarif discussed.

“I saw that there is a Senator Murphy, met with the Iranians, is that a fact? I just saw that on the way over, is there anything I should know?” Trump mused. “That sounds like to me a violation of the Logan Act. What happened with that?”

A spokeswoman for Murphy said the senator gave the U.S. embassy in Germany a heads up that he was pursuing a meeting with Zarif, adding that Murphy has met with Zarif before — under both the Obama and Trump administrations.

“Unfortunately, President Trump’s Iran policy has been a total disaster. So I can understand that he wants to distract from his failures,” Murphy said in a statement in response to Trump’s missive, adding that he and Zarif discussed “apolitical priorities.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has little interest in investigating the Justice Department’s abrupt reversal on a sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone — rebuffing a Democratic demand sparked by President Donald Trump’s attacks on the federal prosecutors in the case.

Graham, a staunch Trump ally, said Wednesday he did not intend to bring Attorney General William Barr in for testimony aside from the committee’s general oversight of the Justice Department. And while Senate Republicans broadly criticized Trump’s Twitter forays into the case, they said further investigation was not warranted — dismissing Democrats’ calls for congressional action over allegations of politically motivated favoritism.

“I don’t think he should be commenting on cases in the system. I don’t think that’s appropriate,” Graham told reporters.

“You want to let the legal process to move forward in the way it’s intended to,” added Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.). “The president weighs in on a lot of things. He tweeted about it I guess, so people perceived that as him having weighed in. But in the end, the Justice Department and lawyers over there need to do what they need to do to make sure justice is being served.”

Trump appeared to confirm on Wednesday morning that Barr intervened in Stone’s case, writing on Twitter: “Congratulations to Attorney General Bill Barr for taking charge of a case that was totally out of control and perhaps should not have even been brought.”

Congratulations to Attorney General Bill Barr for taking charge of a case that was totally out of control and perhaps should not have even been brought. Evidence now clearly shows that the Mueller Scam was improperly brought & tainted. Even Bob Mueller lied to Congress!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 12, 2020

Federal prosecutors initially recommended a prison sentence of seven to nine years for Stone, a former Trump political adviser who was convicted of obstructing a congressional investigation, making false statements and tampering with witnesses. Hours after the sentencing recommendation was filed, Trump took to Twitter to slam the decision as “horrible and very unfair;” and the following morning, the Justice Department overruled the proposal, prompting the four prosecutors to withdraw from the case or resign from the Justice Department altogether.

Democrats have called for Barr to testify about the reversal amid allegations of politically motivated interference from Trump. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has asked the Justice Department’s inspector general to launch an investigation and on Wednesday urged Graham to convene an emergency Judiciary Committee hearing to conduct oversight.

Later Wednesday, the Democrat-led House Judiciary Committee announced that Barr had agreed to testify on March 31. Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said the panel plans to press Barr on the Stone case as well as other recent controversies involving the Justice Department in the aftermath of Trump’s acquittal in the Senate’s impeachment trial.

A Justice Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the decision to reverse the initial sentencing recommendation was made before Trump registered his displeasure.

Senate Republicans said they trusted U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who is presiding over Stone’s case, to resolve the issue when she decides on a sentence for Stone.

“I think the judge is going to take care of all of that. Nobody is going to question the judge’s decision,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), a former Senate Judiciary Committee chairman.

“Whatever the judge feels like you need to do with a 70-year-old guy, I trust her judgment,” Graham added.

“The decision should be made by the judge, and I have confidence in the third branch of our government to act outside the world of politics and to do what is right,” said Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah).

Other Judiciary Committee Republicans said there was no reason to further investigate the matter.

“There was a miscommunication between the frontline prosecutors and their supervisors. You can’t even indict a public figure without talking to upper-levels at Justice,” said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a Judiciary Committee member.

But Kennedy acknowledged that Trump’s tweets “aggravated the situation.”

“I wish he’d tweet less, but that’s not gonna happen,” Kennedy said.

Asked about Trump’s comments, Romney said: “I can’t begin to spend time discussing the president’s tweets. That would be a full-time job.”

At least one Republican, though, said it was worth talking with the four prosecutors who stepped down in order to learn more about the reversal.

“I think we need to ask them and let’s find out,” said Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.).

Congressional Democrats have so far struggled to develop a unified response to Trump’s post-impeachment offensive against his political foes, including the firings of two key impeachment witnesses.

Republicans who criticized Trump for trying to pressure Ukraine into investigating his rivals said they hoped the president had learned a lesson from his impeachment. But those same Republicans acknowledged this week that that likely is not the case.

“He seems the same as he did two weeks ago,” quipped Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).

Burgess Everett contributed to this report.