Power Grab - Jason Chaffetz Page 0,62
a precursor to impeachment, the selection of anti-Trump activists Norm Eisen and Barry Berke strongly indicated a prejudged investigation was on the way. Judiciary Committee ranking member Doug Collins, a Georgia Republican, noted in a letter to Nadler that the two attorneys had already published their conclusions widely, including in a Brookings Institution report they authored before they were even hired by Nadler. The two attorneys tasked with conducting an impartial investigation wrote that publicly available evidence “strongly supports that the president obstructed justice under ordinary application of relevant criminal law.” They were not hired to investigate. Clearly, they were hired to prosecute.
That became even more clear in early May 2019 when Judiciary Committee Democrats insisted Attorney General William Barr come before the committee and agree to be questioned by staff attorneys rather than by lawmakers themselves. Barr refused. The full redacted report had been publicly released. The unredacted report was available for members of Congress to view. He had testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The point of having staff attorneys interrogate and cross-examine Barr was simply to relitigate the results of the criminal probe for political purposes. Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 1, Barr told the senators, “We have to stop using the criminal justice process as a political weapon.”
Nadler may well believe all the allegations against President Trump are true. But given his certainty about what he will find, can we be sure he will actually recognize, accept, or even share any evidence that contradicts his narrative?
When Truth Becomes a Casualty
When congressional committees give in to the temptation of pursuing outcome-driven investigations, truth can become a casualty of the process. However, valid oversight is important. It needs to be done, even in an election year. Even when it benefits one party and hurts another. The fact that an investigation may be politically convenient does not necessarily negate the value of that investigation. Truth can also become a casualty when we dismiss investigations against our own party that we would pursue against the opposition party. Congress has no credibility if the only standard for pursuing investigations is political expedience.
To get oversight right, we need to apply the same standards regardless of who is in the White House. Congress has broad authority to investigate—and it should. But all of us can benefit from recognizing the hallmarks and red flags that distinguish credible investigations from political witch hunts. Looking at these markers, we can compare the ongoing investigations into the Trump administration with those Republicans pursued against the Obama administration. It’s helpful to ask three questions to determine if an investigation is justified.
1. Is Evidence the Impetus or the Outcome?
First, valid investigations will be a response to evidence of wrongdoing. Outcome-driven investigations will use the investigative process to find evidence of wrongdoing. Broad document requests are the most obvious symptom of a fishing expedition looking for a specific outcome.
2. Is the End Goal to Find a Legislative Fix?
Second, a credible investigation will be solution-driven, not outcome-driven. The focus will be on crafting legislative remedies to the problems brought to light by the investigation. When the purpose of a hearing or an investigation is to politically embarrass someone, there will be no sign of lawmaking.
3. Is the Target the Government?
Third, legitimate oversight is focused on government waste, fraud, and abuse. If there is not government wrongdoing involved, Congress is overstepping constitutional boundaries. Congress is the wrong body to prosecute the wrongdoing of private individuals or companies. That is the job of the executive branch.
Let’s apply these standards to major investigations under each administration.
Question 1: Is Evidence the Impetus or the Outcome?
The role of evidence should come at the beginning of an investigation. If the purpose of document requests is the pursuit of evidence, they’re doing it backward.
The obsession of House Democrats to get their hands on President Trump’s tax returns is a compelling case study in foundation-free investigating. Congress has passed no law requiring presidential candidates to release tax returns. Candidates often do so voluntarily. But President Trump, citing an ongoing audit, has chosen not to release his.
This choice by the president is the only real evidentiary foundation of the investigation into President Trump’s returns. Since he has, as of this writing, opted not to make his returns public, a decision I have criticized, the conclusion of Democrats is that he must be hiding something. We hear that from them a lot. This is a flimsy pretext for an investigation.
House Ways and Means Committee chairman Richard Neal, a