An Oversight Bonanza

The biggest problem Democrats may have if they, as seems increasingly likely, win majorities in one or both houses will be deciding where to begin in their investigation of Donald Trump’s reign of incompetence and corruption. The urgent need for congressional oversight got a boost this week with ProPublica’s damning article detailing how a Russian oligarch, Umar Kremlev, paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to help host Donald Trump Jr.’s wedding reception — just the latest example of egregious foreign influence peddling. “For a decade, Putin’s government, regarded as a chief adversary of the U.S., has been accused of efforts to influence American elections,” ProPublica noted. “Attempts by Russia to make inroads with the Trumps before the 2016 election exploded into controversy that dogged much of the president’s first term.” This should alarm all Americans, as it raises more troubling questions about Trump’s pro-Putin stance in the Ukraine war. As the article posed, “National security experts expressed alarm at Trump Jr. accepting the oligarch’s largesse, saying it raised an urgent question: What motivated Kremlev to spend a fortune cultivating the connection?” One can only imagine. But as bad as this is, it is only one instance of one category of egregious misconduct that Trump and the Republicans have countenanced. Democrats will have their hands full, as was evident in a recent Washington Post article that laid out the categories of potential investigations: self-enrichment by Trump and his families and cronies; handouts and pardons to supporters; self-glorifying construction projects; immigration abuse; spotlighting misconduct allegations against immigration officers; the detention of lawful residents and citizens; the rising death toll in immigration detention centers; the deployment of the National Guard in liberal cities; and the alleged mishandling of spending and contracts by then-Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem; dismantling/destroying the federal government; prosecution of enemies; pressure campaigns on corporations, universities, and law firms, “often in violation of the First Amendment”; foreign affairs: “the Board of Peace, a multinational group meant to end conflicts; the new presidential plane gifted by Qatar; tariffs and trade deals; the Iran war; military intervention and strikes against alleged drug-trafficking boats in Venezuela; and the redevelopment of Gaza”; and the Epstein files. It’s an impressive list, with many specific scandals that could easily be slotted into the categories above (e.g., DOJ attorneys’ possible violation of professional ethics and federal court rules, nominees and officials’ alleged lying under oath and/or misleading lawmakers, racism and discriminatory practices at the Pentagon and elsewhere, widespread Hatch Act violations by Cabinet officials). The most obvious concern about embarking on this ambitious plan — “the lawless Trump gang will refuse to cooperate” — is a further indictment of the Trump regime’s unfitness to serve and its contempt for democracy. But it is also an example of counterproductive fatalism. For starters, not even the Trump goons can stop everyone from cooperating. There are ex-regime employees, victims of abuse, private sector collaborators (who fear consequences of ignoring Congress), whistleblowers, and yes, even some responsible current officials who will show up and testify truthfully under oath. There are also written documents that cannot be concealed or destroyed. Congress should be clear that failure to cooperate and testify truthfully will have serious, ongoing ramifications. These include the defunding of relevant government departments, referral for criminal proceedings in a future Democratic administration (or to state and local authorities who may have jurisdiction for underlying misconduct), and civil suits against individuals and government entities — for which courts will have jurisdiction to hand down contempt sanctions for noncooperation. Other anticipatory objections to the investigations smack more of self-defeatism: ‘Nothing will happen to these people. Trump cannot be impeached or go to jail.’ Such complaints get the process backward. First, Congress compiles the record, then Congress, the courts, and the voters decide what to do about it. Moreover, the absence of maximalist penalties for Trump (who cannot be certain that the MAGA Supreme Court’s absurd grant of criminal immunity extends, for example, to acts of pure personal enrichment having nothing to do with his core duties as president) leaves a universe of potential ways to hold wrongdoers accountable. These range from clawing back ill-gotten gains to professional sanctions (e.g., disbarment) to criminal prosecution (federal, state, or local) for lower-level officials to military discipline to permanent exclusion from federal jobs. Let’s not overlook one of the key reasons for the entire exercise: To make an historic record that removes any reasonable doubt about the extent of the cruelty, incompetence, malfeasance, and lawlessness of this regime. Voters in future elections should have no doubt as to who enabled what misconduct, who looked the other way, who profited from office, and who put party loyalty and personal interest above their obligations to the Constitution and the American people. Protect Democracy, the nonpartisan pro-democracy organization, in its 2022 report observed the wide-ranging purposes oversight and accountability can provide: “[C]omprehensive fact-finding and truth-telling can combat disinformation and work towards creating a more shared reality; lay the political groundwork for institutional reforms; and generate support for other critical accountability measures, such as criminal prosecutions.” It is vital that those who engaged in wrongdoing not be allowed to waltz away with reputations untouched by their participation in conduct that should shock the conscience of decent Americans: Accountability can break the revolving door of wrongdoers cycling in and out of power and recommitting offenses—using their time out of power to rehabilitate reputations. In the absence of accountability, history may favor glossing over the breadth and gravity of transgressions that occurred and create an environment amenable to reputationally rehabilitating wrongdoers. Anyone running for office who served under Trump will have to account for his or her record; anyone seeking important positions in civil society (e.g. partners in law firms, corporation board members) will also need to explain their conduct. Every voter, every public entity, and every private sector employer or philanthropic organization will make an evaluation of past conduct — then themselves be held responsible if they decide to entrust former Trump lackeys with new positions. In sum, the task of investigating Trump regime wrongdoing may seem overwhelming, but Democrats have no choice but to proceed swiftly, on multiple fronts. Delay, non-confrontation, and “bottom-up” investigation of Jan. 6 under the well-meaning but hapless former Attorney General Merrick Garland had disastrous ramifications for democracy. Congressional Democrats should not repeat that pattern. They should be prepared, focused, and determined to search out wrongdoing at the highest levels of the Trump regime as soon as they take office. We will not get a second chance to investigate and hold responsible those who have inflicted so much harm on so many. Democrats should establish and fund a separate committee whose sole function is to investigate and prosecute those individuals who have engaged in criminal and unconstitutional acts. Jack Smith, if willing, should lead it. The mantra should be: “Compliance Is Complicity”.