The editors of Bloomberg have come out in support of the investigation I wrote about a few days ago:
One option, as Senator Lindsey Graham has proposed, would be a select committee made up of the top members of other congressional committees relevant to the investigation. Given the scope of the issues involved — including espionage, national security, cybersecurity, foreign relations, economic sanctions and more — that approach makes some sense.
Another option would be an independent commission. Although it would require legislation, such a panel would ensure a public and transparent probe, and it would be empowered to investigate failures and shortcomings across the government, including within Congress itself. The commission that investigated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks was an exemplar of open bipartisan inquiry and could serve as a model.
Note that the idea of an official formal investigation isn’t partisan or media scalp-hunting. It’s an idea that has been proposed by both Republicans and Democrats.
Would such an investigation convince anyone? Or are all evaluations being performed primarily on the basis of confirmation bias?
For my part I don’t care. If we are to be a society based on laws, we need to follow certain procedures and the most impartial, even-handed investigation possible is one of those procedures.
Congress doesn’t need permission; it should act in creating an independent commission immediately with or without the support of the president.
Commissions are Washington’s version of the New Jersey Pine Barrens. They’re where the bodies are buried. You want something to go away? Appoint a bipartisan commission and it’s never heard of again.
I prefer and independent commission as well but I doubt Congress will go that route.
How many investigations and reports did we have on Benghazi? The GOP did not believe the bipartisan reports, so they did their own. They didn’t believe their own investigations, so they repeated them. Once you have that kind of precedent set, a repeat seems likely, but we can hope not.
Importantly, Trump needs to open up his tax returns. As long as those are not open claims that he is owned by the Russians will persist and doubts remain, with some justification.
Steve
http://www.wcpo.com/news/state/state-kentucky/kentucky-congressman-claims-deep-state-undermining-president-trump
Massie one of the good guys.
About the GOP/Benghazi brouhaha. It was Dennis Kucinich and, I believe Ralph Nader along with Ron Paul who pointed out they
never did, or at best rarely, object to the CIA gunrunning and training of jihadis, conveyed also to Syria to overthrow Assad. How many objected to that part of Clinton’s complicity?
A congressional investigation is fine. I’ve been distracted, but I still find no reason for the investigation of Flynn, or anyone, by the FBI or whomever. What’s the predicate?
It’s really too late. I suspect you could have your big bipartisan commission investigate Donald Trump’s connection to Moscow; it could decide that Trump was taking elocution lessons from Vladimir Putin and that the two had frequent talks on coordinating their actions; we might find his personnel choices were recommended by the KGB and so on; Trump might agree this was a fair summary; Putin might even agree this was a fair summary.
And most Republican voters would just shake their heads and say “At least he’s different from crooked Hillary!”
Ordinary Germans never turned against Hitler. Ordinary Italians never turned against Mussolini. Ordinary Spaniards — after a few years of “education” — didn’t turn against Franco. Ordinary Soviet citizens didn’t resist Stalin, not in significant numbers anyhow. And until Tiennamin Square, most Chinese didn’t resist their leaders in significant numbers.
I think a national leader has to be really insanely viscious — something like Vlad the Impaler — to get much of the population to turn against him. Failing that, your proposed commission would accomplish nothing.