We’re supposed to be a fact based community, but unfortunately in our current debate over holding REAL hearings that would inform the public and possibly lead to an impeachment proceeding, or whether we should wait for next year’s elections, there is a lot of misunderstanding. One misinformed argument that I’ve heard over and over again, is that the glacial/geological slow pace of the standing committee “investigations” today, can’t be avoided and this simply is the way the process works.
Well we have some recent examples we can look at. We have to ignore the Clinton impeachment proceedings since they were nothing more than an additional attack on our democracy by what has long been a 3rd world autocratic Republican cult, so they only took a few weeks.
So the best example we can use is the Senate Watergate hearings. Let’s start with a few simple facts.
1) The committee was authorized in Feb. 1973 and started hearings on May 17 1973.
2) The Watergate special prosecutor was named on May 19, 1973.
This 2nd fact is very important. The Senate Watergate committee did not have the enormous advantage of all of the information that leaked from the 2 year Mueller investigation (not by Mueller or his team). The unredacted Mueller report really doesn’t have a lot of new information that hadn’t already been reported in the press, but it does an excellent job of tying everything together and expressing the seriousness of the actions of betrayal by Trump’s crime syndicate. Also, what the Watergate special prosecutor was doing didn’t stop the Watergate Senate committee from doing it’s job. They did an unbelievable job of informing the public, without having to wait for a special prosecutor report.
The size of the investigation into all the crimes, treachery, and betrayal of the Trump/Putin/GOP move to authoritarianism is FAR bigger than the Watergate investigation. Which means there are FAR more witnesses that can be called, FAR more documents that can be entered into the record, FAR more paths the investigation can follow. Also, currently there are 3 major committees that are supposed to be handling the “investigations”, so there is 3 times the opportunity to hold public hearings to inform the public.
So lets get down to the brass tacks and look at the timeline for witnesses that testified in the Senate Watergate hearings.
Thursday, May 17, 1973
Odle, Robert C., Jr., former director of adminstration, Committee for the Re-Election of the President
Kehrli, Bruce A., special assistant to the President
Leeper, Paul W., sergeant, Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, D.C.
Barrett, John Bruce, officer, Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, D.C.
Friday, May 18, 1973
Shoffler, Carl M., officer, Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, D.C.
McCord, James W., Jr., former office security assistant to Robert C. Odle, accompanied by Bernard Fensterwald, Jr., counsel
Tuesday, May 22, 1973
McCord, James W., Jr., testimony resumed
Caulfield, John J., Assistant Director for Criminal Enforcement, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, Department of the Treasury
Wednesday, May 23, 1973
Caulfied, John J., testimony resumed
Ulasewicz, Anthony, retired New York City Police Department detective
Alch, Gerald, former attorney for James W. McCord, Jr.
Thursday, May 24, 1973
Alch, Gerald, testimony resumed
Barker, Bernard L., member of Watergate to break-in group of June 17, 1972
Baldwin, Alfred C., III, a suspect in the Watergate incident of June 17, 1972, accompanied by Robert Mirto, attorney
Tuesday, June 5, 1973
Testimony of Sally J. Harmony, Accompanied by Thomas E. Quinn, Jr., Counsel
Wednesday, June 6, 1973
Testimony of Hugh W. Sloan, Jr., Accompanied by James R. Stoner and James R. Treese, Counsels
Thursday, June 7, 1973
Testimony of Hugh W. Sloan, Jr. - Resumed
Testimony of Herbert Lloyd Porter, Accompanied by Charles B. Murray, Counsel
Tuesday, June 12, 1973
Testimony of Herbert L. Porter - Resumed
Testimony of Maurice H. Stans, Accompanied by Robert W. Barker, Attorney
Wednesday, June 13, 1973
Testimony of Maurice H. Stans - Resumed
Thursday, June 14, 1973
Testimony of Jeb Stuart Magruder; Accompanied by James J. Bierbower, Counsel
Monday, June 25, 1973
Testimony of John W. Dean III; Accompanied by Charles N. Shaffer and Robert C. McCandless, Counsels
Tuesday, June 26, 1973
Testimony of John W. Dean III - Resumed
Wednesday, June 27, 1973
Testimony of John W. Dean III - Resumed
Tuesday, June 28, 1973
Testimony of John W. Dean III - Resumed
Tuesday, June 29, 1973
Testimony of John W. Dean III - Resumed
Friday, June 29, 1973
Testimony of John W. Dean III - Resumed
Tuesday, July 10, 1973
Mitchell, John N., former Attorney General and campaign director of the Committee to Re-Elect the President, accompanied by William G. Hundley, Plato
Wednesday, July 11, 1973
Mitchell, John N., testimony resumed
Thursday, July 12, 1973
Mitchell, John N., testimony resumed
+ 1938 Moore, Richard A., special counsel to the President, accompanied by Herbert J. Miller, Jr., counsel
Friday, July 13, 1973
Moore, Richard A., testimony resumed
Monday, July 16, 1973
Moore, Richard A., testimony resumed
Butterfield, Alexander P., Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, former deputy assistant to the President
Kalmbach, Herbert W., former associate finance chairman for the Finance Committee To Re-Elect the President and presonal attorney to the President, ac
...
This schedule just keeps going with people like Haldeman and Ehrlichman and Helm…, but the above is what the Watergate Senate committee did in it’s first 2 months.
The standing committees in the House today could have easily started hearings in mid Feb., and they even ran in last years elections on holding Trump “accountable” as reason to vote for them.
So let’s look at the combined fact testimony in the major committees from people involved in the biggest scandal in American history.
Feb 27 2019
Michael Cohen
So this is what at least 3 current standing committees have done in 4 months, compared to what 1 Watergate Senate committee did in 2 months.
Even though there are multiple times the number of witnesses that could testify about what Trump has done and continues to do compared to Watergate, this is where we are today. Chairman Nadler recognizes how far reaching the investigation needs to be, which is why way back on March 4 he requested documents from 80 people and said:
“We will act quickly to gather this information, assess the evidence, and follow the facts where they lead with full transparency with the American people,”
...
“This is a critical time for our nation, and we have a responsibility to investigate these matters and hold hearings for the public to have all the facts. That is exactly what we intend to do.”
Whatever happened to that? What documents were released to the public so there could be “full transparency with the American people”, what documents were subpoenaed, who was called to testify in the following days because “This is a critical time for our nation, and we have a responsibility to investigate these matters and hold hearings for the public to have all the facts”?
So those are the facts when comparing the action of the Watergate Senate committee and the multiple House committees of today. Of course there are a collection of changing and misinformed excuses that are used to try and explain the inaction. First it was the Govt shutdown, then something about committees not forming quick enough, even though Dems knew months before being sworn in they would be holding oversight hearings. Then there’s the executive privilege, although no Dem chair has gone to court even though the full house could have voted months ago, and it goes on and on.
So the next time someone tells you how long it takes to conduct a congressional investigation, just remember what one Watergate Senate committee was able to do compared to what isn’t being done by multiple House committees today.
RESIST!
UPDATE: As I said, there are a lot of misinformed arguments out there and it can be a challenge to address them all. Some believe that Richard Nixon was some kind of cooperating president who simply did what the congressional committees told him to do and that he didn’t try to block the investigations. That’s misinformed and Nixon was in fact charged with exactly that.
Article III failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas.