***Update*** Here’s a link to a Washington Post OpEd piece by Hillary Clinton that I believe bolsters the case I made in this piece when it was published this afternoon. In the original title it said A Rose by any other name is still an Impeachment Hearing. I had to change the title to accommodate noting the OpEd & it’s author. Nice to know someone like Hillary who’s a lot smarter than I am agrees we should follow the Watergate precedent instead of the Starr/Whitewater one.
Proposition: Think about what a Select Committee To Protect U.S. Elections From Foreign Interference conducted by the House might wind up doing. I’m envisioning something like the Senate Watergate Committee, which was officially labeled the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities. It was a small (seven members) committee, and I think a key part of its success was that while the members took active part and asked questions, the real work/questioning was done mostly by staff counsel. Witnesses testifying to questions by lawyers who weren’t limited to five or ten minute blocks produced a lot less “speechifying” — both from the questioners and the witnesses. It’s a lot harder for a witness to “filibuster” to the end of a short time block, especially if the person handling the questioning is experienced in a courtroom and pursuing a direct line of questioning & knows how to handle a “cross examination” of a “hostile” witness. As for committee members, I’m thinking the heads of the House Intelligence, Homeland Security, Oversight & Reform and Foreign Affairs or members they designate in their stead. The GOP can put up whatever three members they want. “Gym” Jordan has no problem making an ass out of himself but when compared to a good staff attorney his rants when he got a chance to “ask questions” (IOW rant at a witness) would make him look even worse. The main thing is that a small committee that empowered a dedicated and talented staff of lawyers to do the needed work could produce significant results now as it did in the past.
Here are the outlines of what I believe such a committee could/should explore:
- Russian (in particular although other country’s could be cited) efforts to interfere in elections overseas before what took place here in the U.S.
- Ongoing Russian efforts (and that of others such as the Saudis or China) to interfere in our elections
- What was done in 2016 to counter those efforts and what is (and more importantly what is not) being done to counter those ongoing efforts for 2020 and beyond.
Think about it. Highly credible witnesses could be called that would highlight things like:
- Starting in the summer of 2016 Trump and his top campaign folks were warned by the FBI that Russia was trying to mess with the election & a request to let them know if they received any overtures.
- That briefing to the Gang of 12 where McConnell pitched a fit and threatened (successfully) to go nuclear if the public statement wasn’t watered down.
- The warnings Obama privately gave Russia and the sanctions he imposed. Trump’s turning around and working to roll back said sanctions or prevent their implementation — such as Rex Tillerson’s first act being to shut down the office at the State Dept. that oversees/implements sanctions.
- Trump’s own national security team’s testimony to Congress that Russia’s efforts have been ongoing — and that the President/WH hasn’t provided any direction or authorized measures whereby different agencies could better coordinate their efforts.
- Yes, it could also delve into Trump’s efforts to deny the Russian operation including that disgraceful performance in Helsinki where Putin admitted he wanted Trump to win with Trump standing right there, and then Trump defending Putin/Russia instead of his own intelligence agencies. It could also go into Trump’s efforts to shut down any investigation into Russian interference in our elections!
I could keep going but you get the point. Any number of outstanding, credible witnesses could be called and some of the panels would be compelling if focused as I suggest. Best of all, some of the witnesses could come from current and former officials that served under Trump! And their prior testimony is already a matter of record, including that of folks like FBI Director Chris Wray or DNI Dan Coates who seems ready to get the hell out anyway.
Would such a set of hearings be an “Impeachment” hearings? Not in name maybe, but in effect it would be the same, just as happened in our country once upon a time and led to a President being driven from Office. I hope anyone who opened this diary will give serious thought to what I’ve said so far even if they don’t read further. Maybe anyone reading will think this is a non-starter and it was a waste of their time. Maybe someone will come up with a better version of what I’m proposing which is fine with me. I do however think that by a set of hearings focused on this topic much of the same ground that has been covered by Mueller and various other standing Congressional Committees could be presented to the public in a way similar to what happened with a Senate Select Committee in 1973 — well before any impeachment investigation, much less formal hearings started in the House Judiciary Committee. In the process it would take some of the sting out of Trump’s/the GOP’s arguments that we were “out to get Trump impeached.” It won’t matter that everyone knows what’s really going on, because there’s the very real issue that Russia and probably others are at work trying to screw with 2020 — and that not only is the WH not doing anything about it but even cutting resources to deal with the problem their very own people say exists.
That might be enough to focus public opinion and change the dynamic regarding formal impeachment proceedings before the end of this year — IF we get this going by late July. Think about the timing. If this got rolling in late July and during August when people are taking vacations more people will see things unfold live on TV, or be paying more attention when the highlights are on the news or when they are going through their social media feeds. I think this is a viable approach that could yield devastating (for Trump) results. And given history I think it’s the approach to take for reasons I’ll explain after the break for anyone who cares to see my logic.
If you don’t read any further, please think about that much at least. As for why I’m suggesting it, here’s the (admittedly) long explanation that expands on comments I’ve made in recent days. Yes, it’s something of a read but I think my case is solid — both for comparing the difference between what happened with Nixon & Clinton and why using a Watergate era approach is the way to go.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all we need to look back further than the Clinton example when considering the issue of whether or not to pursue formal Impeachment proceedings. In my lifetime multiple Presidents have faced serious efforts to remove them from Office via Impeachment in the House followed by conviction in the Senate. Only in Clinton’s case did the full House of Representatives vote out Articles of Impeachment triggering a Senate Trial — and that was only the second time in our entire history things got that far. In both cases the Senate failed to convict and both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton remained in Office. That’s not the issue I want to explore however.
There is a difference in process between what happened with Nixon and what happened with Clinton. I believe the process that took place with Nixon which ultimately resulted in his resignation (rather than face certain defeat in the Senate) is more both more like the current situation and the model we should use. At this point I think it’s crucial to point out that while Nixon resigned under pressure, the Impeachment process never even got to the point of the full House of Representatives voting out Articles of Impeachment. The House Judiciary Committee did so, and it’s worth remembering that even at the time the Judiciary Committee took votes on the five Articles of Impeachment that had drafted not a single Article received the support of the Republicans on the Committee: ( From Wikipedia )
|
Article I: Obstruction of Justice |
Passed 27–11 |
Democrats: 21 yes, 0 no
Republicans: 6 yes, 11 no
|
Article II: Abuse of Power |
Passed 28–10 |
Democrats: 21 yes, 0 no
Republicans: 7 yes, 10 no
|
Article III: Contempt of Congress |
Passed 21–17 |
Democrats: 19 yes, 2 no
Republicans: 2 yes, 15 no
|
Article IV: Cambodia bombing |
Failed 12–26 |
Democrats: 12 yes, 9 no
Republicans: 0 yes, 17 no
|
Article V: Failure to pay taxes |
Failed 12–26 |
Democrats: 12 yes, 9 no
Republicans: 0 yes, 17 no
|
Got that? As of the end of July, even with most off the information out there including partial evidence from the tapes (The SCOTUS decision ordering that ALL of them be turned over didn’t come down until days before the committee’s votes) Republicans still weren’t on board with removing Nixon from Office. True, his support had significantly eroded and plenty of Republicans would have, during a full House vote have approved at least some of the Articles voted out of Committee and estimates were that some GOP Senators would vote to convict but the count seemed pretty clear at most a total of 60 Senators would vote to convict. Since 67 were needed that means Nixon would have survived at even after the judiciary Committee vote he planned to tough it out. It was only the release of the so-called “Smoking Gun Tape” on August 5 that changed things. At that point the entire country including everyone in the GOP couldn’t ignore the fact that within days of the Watergate break in Nixon was not only fully aware of the details but planning (literally from the Oval Office) the cover up. It didn’t take long for his support to crater and for Barry Goldwater to head to the WH with a few other Republicans to tell Nixon he was going to lose and lose big — the votes wouldn’t even be close. So rather than suffer the disgrace of being the first President in history to get kicked out of Office Nixon resigned. Whether he cut a secret deal with Ford (and the others) for the pardon is a separate issue, but everyone knew he quit rather than get formally whipped.
That taping system was an incredible stroke of luck. Without it and a SCOTUS that was far less political than it’s become doing their duty Nixon would have finished out his term. Wounded to be sure, and Democrats would have been set up quite well to win in 1976 but until that “smoking gun” tape the GOP was mostly willing to stick with Nixon and take their chances. Is there anyone reading this who thinks today’s GOP isn’t even more deeply dug in? Or that, even with an actual “smoking gun” tape enough of them would put country above Party? I for one have my doubts but I’m not discounting the possibility enough public pressure could build to make enough of them start worrying more about punishment from the voters than being on the receiving end of Trump’s twitter rants. However, it’s clear the Mueller report hasn’t moved many (if any) Republicans in Congress to that point.
That’s why I think Watergate, and not “Whitewater Mutated” is the example to follow.
We saw in 2018 how so many Republicans in the House decided it was time to “spend more time with the family” or “pursue other interests outside of government” etc. It will be interesting to see if a more limited version of this takes place in the Senate as this year unfolds. In the meantime the GOP wants the impact of the release of the Mueller report to blow over. It might be that Barr’s antics might backfire, and the dragging out tactic (not to mention those fourteen matters be they prosecutions or investigations that will likely lead to prosecutions) could backfire by fall and leave their entire Party severely wounded heading into 2020.
I don’t think it’s likely (not yet at least) but possible that if by September/October Trump’s approval is stuck below forty percent or worse, down in the mid 30s the GOP as a whole could decide to cut and run. As in away from Trump. The question is, how can we make that happen?
Clinton was pursued under the Independent Counsel Statute adopted in the wake of Watergate to prevent another “Saturday Night Massacre.” That law provided for an Independent Counsel to, if they so chose to make virtually anything they wanted public if they could convince the Judge presiding over any Grand Jury testimony/evidence obtained that it was in the public interest to make said information available. As we know Ken Starr made that motion and it was granted. Starr also pushed the issue of indicting Clinton, and pushed the DOJ to revisit the rule about not doing so. He had authority Mueller didn’t have.
But the important point I want to make is that the GOP went straight from the Starr report to Impeachment of Clinton. It ultimately failed to slay their “White(water) Whale” and get rid of Clinton in part I believe because while the public (including many Democrats) were disgusted, his lying about some sexual (but not even actual sexual intercourse) acts outside his marriage weren’t widely viewed by the public either before the Starr report/Impeachment or afterwards as something so great an abuse of his Office as to warrant removal. The GOP didn’t lay out a broader case because they didn’t have one. There were no widespread abuses of power and attempts to corrupt other federal agencies as during Nixon, or national security/foreign policy problems as happened with Reagan during Iran-Contra. It was a tawdry sex matter, and one (cheating on a spouse, and in some cases maybe even lying about it in an official — i.e. divorce proceeding) most adults had seen in their lives via someone in their family or someone they knew. Shameful? Yes. But abuse of Presidential power? Not so much.
With Trump, we have abuses of power (beyond even Nixon’s) to be sure but they also go into election security, foreign policy decisions, and even national security in addition to use of his Office for personal corruption/enrichment.
Mueller had to operate under an updated version of the Special Counsel Statute that existed during Watergate, and also an updated version of the OLC decision on not indicting a sitting President. One question I’d sure like to see Mueller asked when the time comes is whether he and his team ever considered doing what SDNY has done and which Jaworski did during Watergate which is to name the President as an unindicted co-conspirator. Mueller has proven over his lifetime to be such a “by the book” type of person that I imagine he’d be uncomfortable with that, although I also think if that OLC opinion wasn’t there he’d at least have obtained sealed indictments on Obstruction of Justice Charges at the very least. However he might well have believed or been given guidance along the way without having specifically asking that he shouldn’t do what SDNY or (back during Watergate) Jaworski did.
I also think those holding out hope that Mueller will sit in front of Congress on national TV and savage William Barr, pointedly criticize Rod Rosenstein’s oversight or trash Donald Trump by saying what we all know — that hell yes he’d have indicted Trump in a heartbeat if he’d been allowed to do so. With the former two, Mueller will be calm and understated in his responses and while I believe there will be criticism at best it will be quite muted and more often “in code.” He is going to again and again go back to the language put forth in the report and do his best to not say anything more as he believes he’s said all he can say right there. Mueller does face a choice if (as is likely) he’s pressed to go into conversations he had with Rosenstein or Barr regarding supervision of his work, and I’d imagine he’d rather be back in Vietnam trying to keep his Marines from getting killed in an ambush that air differences with his superiors publicly.
I DO think the various House investigations should continue. For all the GOP complaining it’s the kind of oversight that should have been taking place all along. However, while the Obstruction of Justice part of the Mueller report has a section that can be bullet pointed and is compelling it’s still a written report and an incomplete one at that given all the redactions. Also, there are still ongoing matters/investigations that might not be able to be talked about for a very long time, and the counter-intelligence part contains stuff that can probably never be made public for national security reasons as doing so would compromise sources and methods. Still, there is probably enough “there” there that can be brought to light in a compelling way in the right circumstances/setting.
More importantly, it would add a national security component to the case against Trump and I believe amplify the seriousness of the Obstruction portion — damaging Trump’s/the GOP’s efforts to spin the Obstruction as “mere process crimes.” Trump’s Obstruction of Justice has literally been damaging to foreign policy/relationships with longtime allies and also damaged national security.
I believe a Select Committee such as I proposed in the first portion of this diary, IOW adopting the approach taken during Watergate to let a Select Committee do the lion’s share of exposing evidence in a way the public can easily take in will set the table for an actual Impeachment investigation. I realize a case could be made based on what we already know. I also realize that a lot of damage is being done every day. But I also know that Speaker Pelosi is correct when she notes how divisive the process is. I’ve seen full blown Impeachment proceedings twice in my lifetime and if you count investigation of Reagan for Iran-Contra which didn’t lead to quite the same level of Nixon and Clinton was awfully close it makes three. I also believe that as abusive of power as Trump is, an Impeachment that doesn’t result in conviction by the Senate whether it happens soon or late this year/early next year will unleash horrors we don’t want to imagine. If he’s uncontrollable now how much worse would he and his goober supporters be after surviving an Impeachment vote in the Senate? And we have to consider what he might do if imbued with that kind of “immunity” he might do if by the fall of 2020 it’s apparent he will lose the election, or what he might do after losing?
I think the consequences must be considered. The Speaker was right yesterday when she said we might have no choice but to head down the road of formal Impeachment even if removal from Office is unlikely. So, I think it’s essential to do all we can to stack the odds in favor of GOP support for Trump in Congress cratering when push comes to shove as happened with Nixon.
That’s why I think instead of following the GOP example of the Starr Report followed quickly by Impeachment should be set aside, and instead follow the example (which gave the handful of GOP types who were disgusted with Nixon) of Democrats with Nixon of using a Select Committee to get at the issue of what happened via a side door.
Btw, FWIW if my approach were to be adopted (I’m going to forward it to my Representative this week) my choice to head the committee would be Adam Schiff who as chairman of the Permanent Select Committee for Intelligence has knowledge other possible Chairs (i.e. Elijah Cummings) would not.