There were three epiphanies in last week’s testimony from Special Counsel Robert Mueller regarding his investigation of the president:
- Journalistically is the clearest way to write, hands down.
- Robert Mueller is not a good writer.
- Congress has a workaround the “I word,” as Donnie has begun calling it, and it’s pretty simple.
First, the hearing validated journalistic writing. Take your legal, medical, academic and technical literacy jargon and stick ’em in a book somewhere to sell em to your students. Why do you think Mueller’s press conference grabbed so much more attention than his two years’ of research? Because he had to speak succinctly, plainly and clearly, which is isn’t the first rule of journalism; it’s the only rule. There’s a reason America’s greatest writers — Hemingway, Steinbeck, Faulkner, Salinger, Vonnegut — employed the style.
Second, Bob could have really used a good copy editor. There’s no arguing the investigation was an opus of thorough legalese: 2 years’ investigation, three dozen indictments, hundreds of witnesses and not one leak. It’s 448 pages of legal prowess. Yet what’s the one line you remember from the entire affair? “If there was evidence exonerating the president, we would have said so.” Again, it came from the press conference. But more importantly, why not write that in the report, first page? In fact, go a step further: The first page of the tome should have been a journalistically-penned synopsis, summarizing the Russian hacking, the 5 specific incidents of obstruction and that Trump was not out of the woods; far from it.
Mueller also could have used a memorable conclusion, essential in solid writing. Here’s where a journalistic final page would have come in handy, when Mueller could explain that he’s not prosecuting Trump, but simply gathering facts for a grand jury. And Congress is the grand jury. Write that! Again, a bulleted, numbered list parenthetically enclosing the gist of the case would have dictated the narrative, instead of relying on two impromptu press conferences to clarify findings that Trump’s lackeys intentionally muddied.
And finally, the talk that’s dominated the post-Mueller conference has been impeachment. Rightfully, it’s a sticky wicket for the 237 presidential candidates. Trump seems to want one (it would provide his base the red meat of a new “witch hunt”), and Pelosi (who saw Bill Clinton’s post-impeachment surge in popularity polls) knows the gesture would die in the Senate before it passed even one of the flaps of Mitch McConnell’s neck.
But there’s a clear third option: impeachment inquiry. In that outdated relic we call the U.S. Constitution is a little loophole that allows the House of Representatives to launch an impeachment inquiry against any president. According to federal law, the House Judiciary Committee first can hold hearings to investigate whether impeachment is warranted. This can include calling witnesses, collecting documents and debating whether the behavior in question constitutes an impeachable offense, which the Constitution only ambiguously defines. The inquiry would culminate in the panel either voting to recommend that the full House approve one or more articles of impeachment, or deciding not to make any such recommendation. It’s been launched twice, against Nixon and Clinton, and is precisely the tool to use on Trump.
What a gift horse Dems seemed determined to look in the mouth. This middle ground would allow Dems on the fence to stay perched there while aggressive Dems subpoena the shit out of the president and his cronies. And there’s no timetable for when the Judiciary Committee has to take a vote. So take your time. If the GOP can string along Merrick Garland for a year without a Supreme Court vote, surely the Dems can take two on a matter exponentially more important. Strategically, it could be politically astute: You couldn’t buy as much negative advertisement as you’d get from seeing Trump’s slackwits sweat it out in a courtroom. PLUS: You get to dismiss any Trump assertion by simply pointing out ‘This from the guy under investigation for impeachment,” a tag that could stick well into 2020 Sure it’s vague. But it’s accurate.
So why the hesitancy to move for inquiry? In short, guts. It died with John McCain. But I find these questions best addressed in reverse order. If this doesn’t qualify for an impeachment inquiry, what would? Buck up, wingers. You may have expected Mueller to trot Trump out of the White House in handcuffs. But he’s done something nearly as effective: He’s deputized you.
