When people say the House Democrats are doing “nothing” to hold Trump accountable, I’ll just tell them to listen to today’s hearings.
Due process takes time.
I. The Judiciary Committee (morning session)
At the conclusion of the morning hearing, Laurence Tribe tweeted this:
I disagree with this assessment, and suggest it comes from unrealistic expectations.
The Dem Judiciary Committee strategy appeared to be:
- March through the elements of obstruction of justice to show that the Report contains sufficient evidence that Trump committed a crime,
- Talk about the Report’s insinuation that Congress, not a prosecutor, needs to hold a president accountable, and finally . . .
- End with a mention of the “I” word, and suggest that Congress is left with no other option.
Follow up questions might have helped eviscerate the GOP conspiracy theories, but ignoring the GOP grandstanding and marching through the evidence also has advantage.
It seems to me that the most effective way to disprove the conspiracy theories is to demonstrate that the Report contains evidence of Trump’s crimes.
Getting pulled into a game of whack-a-lie would suck up all the time.
II. The Intelligence Committee (afternoon session)
The strategy from the Intel Committee was similar:
- Make clear that foreign interference is an ongoing and serious risk,
- Show how Trump’s lies and business dealings make him vulnerable to blackmail,
- Show the extent of self-dealing in Trump world . . .
- And show that the Trumps and Russians both understood they would benefit financially from their interactions.
In other words, illustrate that behavior that isn’t specifically a crime can still put the nation at risk.
Schiff’s finale was epic.
Schiff’s conclusion: The many topics Mueller could not and would not discuss mean the inquiries are left to Congress.
What is left for Congress to pursue?
💠Whether Trump or others in his inner circle have been compromised and are vulnerable to blackmail . . .
💠Whether Trump is running the presidency for his own profit instead of the good of the American people, and
💠Whether Trump should be impeached.
It’s coming, people. If the House Dems don’t carefully line up their ducks—including making sure they’ll have the votes— impeachment will be a disaster.
Disasters are always best avoided.😉
I’ll make all my notes presentable, and then share them.
II. Zingers from the Morning Session
The success of the morning session for the Democrats can be measured by the number of zingers they racked up.
#1:
NADLER: The president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely and totally exonerated him, but that is not what your report said, is it?
MUELLER: Correct. That is not what the report said.
#2:
NADLER (reads from p. 2, v. 2) then asks, “Now does that say there was no obstruction?
MUELLER: No.
#3:
NADLER: And what about total exoneration? Did you actually totally exonerate the president?
MUELLER: No.
#4:
NADLER: And your investigation actually found, quote, “multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian interference and obstruction investigations.” Is that correct?
MUELLER: Correct.
#5:
NADLER: Under Department of Justice policy, the president could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes after he leaves office, correct?
MUELLER: True.
#6:
NADLER: Did the president refuse a request to be interviewed by you and your team?
MUELLER: Yes.
#7:
LOFGREN: Did your investigation find that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from one of the candidates winning?
MUELLER: Yes.
LOFGREN: And which candidate would that be?
MUELLER: Well, it would be Trimp — Trump.
#8:
LOFGREN: You wrote [the Trump campaign] expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, isn’t that correct?
MUELLER: That’s correct
#9:
H. JOHNSON: And the president claimed that he wanted to fire you because you had supposed conflicts of interest, isn’t that correct?
MUELLER: True.
H. JOHNSON: Now, you had no conflicts of interest that required your removal, isn’t that a fact?
MUELLER: Correct.
DOJ ethics officials confirmed that you had no conflicts that would prevent you from serving as special counsel, isn’t that correct?
MUELLER: That’s correct.
#10:
Richmond: In other words, the president was trying to force McGahn to say something that McGahn did not believe to be true.
MUELLER: That’s accurate.
#11:
Richmond: “substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the special counsel terminated, the president acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the president’s conduct towards the investigation.”
MUELLER: It’s accurate.
#12:
Richmond: It’s fair to say the president tried to protect himself by asking staff to falsify records relevant to an ongoing investigation?
Mueller: I would say that is generally the summary.
And then Republican Rep. Buck forgot which side he was on, and asked this:
BUCK: OK, but the — could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?
MUELLER: Yes.
