Dear Chairman Nadler:
I appreciate and admire your work on the Judiciary Committee and how you have relentlessly pursued witnesses only to be blocked by President Trump and AG Barr. But there are critical witnesses you can call right now, with or without a subpoena, whether in an impeachment inquiry or not, and they will almost certainly appear.
They are the three ex-GOP prosecutors who made a video for Republicans for the Rule of Law. They will almost certainly appear, with or without a subpoena:
Donald Ayer, deputy attorney general under former President George H.W. Bush, Paul Rosenzweig, deputy assistant secretary of Homeland Security under former President George W. Bush and Jeffrey Harris, deputy associate attorney general for former President Ronald Reagan.
Here is a proposed script for Mr. Rosenzweig, based on quotes in the link above and the Newsweek article Ex-GOP Federal Prosecutors Explain how Trump obstructed Justice in Viral video: Absolute Disregard for the Law. Every substantive answer is a quote or near quote from these prosecutors, the “Rule of Law” Video or the letter from nearly a thousand prosecutors:
Q. Mr. Rozenzweig, you are a Republican. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You served as Deputy Attorney General under President George H.W. Bush, is that correct?
A. Yes
Q. And you are still a Republican today?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Can you tell us a bit about your background
A. [experience as prosecutor]
Q. Have you prosecuted obstruction of justice cases?
A. [Assuming yes — detail a few cases]
Q. You belong to a group called “Republicans for the Rule of Law.” Is that correct?
A. Yes
Q. Why did you choose that name?
A. Because the President, since inauguration, has violated, and continues to violate the Rule of Law as no President has even done before.
Q. Do you believe obstruction and perjury are serious crimes?
A. Yes I do. In fact, in some ways, far more important than normal crimes.
Q. Why?
A. Because they go to the absolute core of how the rule of law functions in this society.
Q. You have read the Mueller Report, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have read Attorney General Barr’s four page summary of the report.
A. Yes. About three weeks earlier than the Mueller Report.
Q. What was your reaction when you finally read the Mueller Report?
A. When I finally had the opportunity to read the Mueller report itself, I realized that the Barr summary was not a fair and accurate summary of what the Mueller report contained,
Q. How is that?
A. In the Mueller report, there is a damning case of obstruction of justice by the president. The second volume identifies 10 or 11 instances in which the special counsel examined the question of obstruction of justice.
Q. The Barr letter said obstruction of justice requires an underlying crime. Is that correct?
A. No. The plain language the obstruction statute requires only obstruction of a “federal proceeding,” like an FBI or Congressional investigation or an election.
Q. You signed a letter along with nearly 1,000 other former federal prosecutors recently, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Shows letter. Is this the letter? (Mark as Exhibit A.)
A. Yes.
Q. Did the letter reach any conclusions regarding the actions of the President and obstruction of justice.
A. Yes.
Q. What was one conclusion?
A. All of us agreed the actions of the President would have resulted in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice if it were done by anyone other than the president.
Q. And why didn’t Mueller indict the President?
A. Because he conformed to the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel Opinion that a sitting President cannot be indicted.
Q. So you believe but for that opinion, President Trump would be indicted for multiple felony charges?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the first act of obstruction by the President?
A. The first thing he did is he tried to influence the [former] head of the FBI James Comey in asking him to go easy on Michael Flynn and when that didn’t work out, he fired James Comey,
Q. What would you say was the worst obstruction?
A. The worst obstruction of all was the president actively being involved to affect the testimony and cooperation of critical witnesses, being Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn and Michael Cohen.
Q. This is known as witness tampering, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And this is one of the reasons Mr Manafort is in prison now?
A. Yes
Q. As a prosecutor, where did you see most examples of witness tampering?
A. In organized crime and gang violence cases.
Q. As a Republican, what is your reaction to the position House and Senate Republicans have taken on this matter?
A. These are actually smart people, they know there is a damning case in the Mueller report of obstruction of justice by the president and they are acting like there's not. And that's just flatly dishonest. [Note — said by Ayers in the video]
…….. continues with specifics of obstruction
I look forward to “Gym” Jordan and his Republican committee colleagues trying to “impeach” a witness like this. This is not a confessed liar like Michael Cohen, to whom you can quote prosecutors saying he’s a liar. These are esteemed Republican prosecutors under multiple Republican Presidents. Let them call Barr or another flack to rebut them.
They can appear as part of an impeachment inquiry, or an inquiry called, e.g., “Proceedings to Investigate the President’s Obstruction of Justice.” For my suggestions on the latter see my diary: A House Super "Committee for the Rule of Law:" Changing the Narrative before Impeaching.
Again, no Court rulings or appeal will be necessary for these no doubt willing witnesses. If the Committee wants to “move the needle” on impeachment opinion, I’m pretty confident this will do it.
Thank you for considering this proposal.
Respectfully,
Bethesda 1971
(A proud constituent of yours)