No, this isn’t about the impeachment debate. It’s about holding high profile legislative hearings — right now — into Russian interference in the 2016 election with A-List witnesses whom Trump can’t silence.
Last week in a comment on Daily Kos, I wrote, “...House Democrats have been left a bit flatfooted at this point. I believe they’ll find their footing going forward — by holding hearings. There are scads of witnesses whom the White House is in no position to block.”
David Corn is in agreement (“Have the Democrats Blown the Trump-Russia Scandal?”):
For five months now, the Democrats have held power within the House. While passing legislation to address voters’ needs and while battling to enforce subpoenas, they could also be telling the story—with hearings featuring witnesses who could present compelling accounts that have a chance of grabbing the nation’s attention for at least a few minutes.
Three percent of Americans say they have read the Mueller report. That number is probably high. Yes, many have seen the headlines and the news accounts summarizing the report’s findings and allegations. But there is something visceral about a well-run hearing. It is a different way of presenting information to the citizenry. (John Dean’s testimony during the Watergate hearings continued for days and captivated the nation.) Congressional hearings could be used to convey the basics of the Trump-Russia scandal that have disappeared in the ceaseless shuffle—and been shoved aside by the debates over collusion and obstruction.
Among the witnesses Corn suggests:
- Felix Sater (former felon, one-time Trump business associate who worked on the Trump Moscow project)
- Richard Gates (Manafort’s #2, deputy campaign chair)
- Paul Manafort (campaign chair, who colluded with a Russian oligarch)
- Donald J. Trump, Jr. (who gleefully arranged the Trump Tower meeting)
- Paul Ryan (former House speaker, who was in the room when Mitch McConnell refused to acknowledge Russian interference in the upcoming 2016 election)
- Michael Flynn (Trump’s one-time national security advisor)
- Ivanka Trump (involved with planning Trump Tower Moscow)
Robert Mueller and Don McGahn aren’t listed. But there are many possible witnesses, including names not mentioned, and the White House couldn’t block the testimony of most of them. There would be no executive privilege, no cooked-up rationales for protecting future presidents, nada.
Why aren’t House Democrats holding investigative hearings now?* Even numerous B-List witnesses have compelling stories to tell. You can’t make the case with empty chairs and arguments about process. This could be great summer cable television viewing for millions of voters who will never read the Mueller Report.
Let’s get on with it.
*Update: I wrote, “Why aren’t House Democrats holding investigative hearings now?” My mistake. That was careless writing. I know House Judiciary met yesterday — with an empty chair (following Barr’s empty chair). I know low-profile hearings have taken place. What I intended to convey is that Democrats should be flooding the zone. House Judiciary should have live witnesses (as the headline suggests). On live television. Democrats have lost the narrative and that’s unfortunate. Putin’s Russia hacked our election. I agree with Corn: “Trump’s political opposition—up against a bombardment of spin and deception—has not continuously presented this case clearly. It’s not too late to do so.”