How bad is the Republican coverup on Trump

and Russia? We may soon find out.

(Evan Vucci/Associated Press)

By Greg Sargent January 2 at 10:10 AM

As we head into 2018, one big, looming unknown is this: Just how far will
congressional Republicans go to prevent a full accounting of Russia’s interference
in our election and any possible Trump campaign conspiracy with it?

Certain House Republicans are already working to frustrate the House Intelligence
Committee’s ongoing investigation. Do Democrats have any recourse? The
answer is yes — but within limits.
In an interview with me, Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut — the No. 2 Democrat on
the House intel committee — said that Democrats are seriously exploring the
possibility of issuing a minority report that details (among other things) the
degree to which Republicans tried to impede a full investigation, should that end
up happening. In this scenario, the public would at least have a clear sense of just
how far Republicans went to protect President Trump and his top officials from
accountability.

“It’s in both the Democrats’ and the Republicans’ interests to … write a report
based on a common set of facts,” Himes told me. “It would be a tragedy if the
report has a minority section that says, ‘Look, we wanted to talk to these two
dozen witnesses and weren’t able to do so.'”

In an important piece, The Post’s Karoun Demirjian reports that Rep. Devin
Nunes, a Trump loyalist, may be wielding his influence as chairman of the intel
committee to block critical lines of inquiry. Democrats have been alarmed by his
tactics, especially the fact that despite his public recusal from the probe, he
“never relinquished his sole, unchecked authority” to sign off on — or kill —
efforts by Democrats to subpoena top Trump officials for more testimony:
People familiar with the committee’s work estimated that Nunes’s effective veto
cost Democrats dozens of requests for interviews and documents that were never
sent out, despite repeated entreaties from the minority side.
This includes requests for subpoenas to obtain additional testimony from key
figures in the probe who Democrats say were not forthcoming enough in
interviews — among them Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Trump’s son Donald
Trump Jr. Democrats surmise they might have compelled them to return if not for
Nunes’s resistance.
In our interview, Himes confirmed that numerous Democratic requests to bring in
witnesses haven’t been acted upon, though he did not confirm Nunes had killed
those requests. He also confirmed that Democrats would like to bring in Sessions
and Trump Jr. to ask “follow-up questions.”
Democrats want to ask Trump Jr. about a phone call he held with his fatherabout
his June 2016 meeting with the Russian lawyer, which he took in the expectation
of receiving dirt on Hillary Clinton supplied by the Russian government. Trump Jr.
and his dad discussed this meeting just after news of it broke in July 2017. When
questioned about this call by committee Democrats, he invoked attorney-client
privilege. Democrats want to subpoena Trump Jr. to compel his testimony, which
could shed light on what happened at that meeting and how far Trump has gone
to prevent the truth about it from coming out.

It appears Nunes may have killed that effort. Meanwhile, Nunes’s investigative
zeal is directed elsewhere: Politico recently reported that Nunes is quietly leading
a group of House Republicans in an effort to build a case that senior Justice
Department and FBI officials improperly handled the explosive “Steele dossier,”
which describes links between Trump and Russia.
Post media critic Erik Wemple says stoking old scandals is an attempt to sow
doubt in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into President
Trump. (Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post)
Trump today called on the Justice Department to target FBI officials for unnamed
acts, generally furthering the narrative — fed by Nunes and conservative media —
that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia probe shows Trump is the victim
of a corrupt “deep state” plot to reverse the election, and that the perpetrators of
that plot should be prosecuted. Yet the New York Times has now reported that
the probe came about when Trump adviser George Papadopoulos boasted to an
Australian diplomat in May 2016 that he’d learned Russia had dirt on Clinton in
the form of thousands of emails. The Australians then passed on this information
to Americans, resulting in the original FBI investigation now run by Mueller.

A minority report?

Himes confirmed to me that Democrats want to call Trump Jr. and Sessions back
in to ask whether Papadoupoulos communicated to top campaign officials the
existence of this Russian dirt on Clinton, and whether that is related to the June
2016 meeting to get said dirt from the Russian government.
But it looks unlikely that Republicans will agree, and Himes said that if
Republicans do end up frustrating a full inquiry more generally — and keep
pushing the narrative of a deep-state coup against Trump — Democrats may issue
a minority report detailing what Republicans really did here.
“If the investigation gets wound up too quickly, the minority report would be
largely about outstanding questions that were never examined,” Himes told me,
though he stressed that he hopes this does not happen.

To be clear, this really might not happen: It’s possible Republicans will allow the
inquiry to unfold, and/or that the full truth is not that damning to Trump and his
associates. There might not be any coverup. Indeed, Republicans
have protested that the Democratic requests for additional testimony are
frivolous. But as Susan Hennessey and Benjamin Wittes point out, we
can empirically evaluate whether Republicans are — or aren’t — making a good-
faith effort to interview all the witnesses necessary to establish the full truth
about Russian interference and possible conspiracy with it. So far, there is reason
for concern that they aren’t.

And if they do not, a minority report might reveal this in full detail. (Meanwhile,
the Mueller probe could reveal some of what Republicans did not want revealed.)
Republicans may be able to prevent the full truth from coming out, but they
cannot prevent the full truth about their own efforts to frustrate an
accounting from seeing the light of day. At which point, the Democrats’ recourse
will be political — to further the cause of accountability, they will need to win the
House in 2018.

* DEMOCRATS MUST HOLD THE LINE ON ‘DREAMERS’: Trump recently tweeted

that there will be no solution for the “dreamers” without money for his silly
wall. The Post notes:
Congressional Democrats have expressed openness to finding additional funding
for border security but have ruled out funding the wall along the U.S.-Mexico
border that Trump promised during his presidential campaign. … Democrats are
under intense pressure from Hispanic lawmakers and liberal activists to reject any
government funding deal that does not resolve the DACA issue. Already,
Democratic senators have helped pass multiple funding deals that did not include
DACA protections, including one in December.
My sense is that the most likely outcome is some kind of funding for fencing
repair that Trump can falsely claim is a big victory for his wall. Democrats cannot
buckle here.

* GOP CHASING ITS OWN TAIL ON OBAMACARE: Politico reports that

Republicans are deeply divided over whether to try again to repeal the Affordable
Care Act:
GOP leaders on Capitol Hill don’t want a repeat of last year’s Obamacare fumble:
They spent precious time on a failed attempt to repeal the health care law every
member of the GOP was presumed to hate. But they also don’t want to take
repeal off the table, which would provoke conservatives who are still determined
to undo Obamacare.
The real question will be whether Republicans agree to act constructively in
shoring up the law (crazy idea, I know). They might — if only because they now
own the health system’s problems.

* REPUBLICANS MAKE NICE NOISES ABOUT BIPARTISANSHIP:Senate Majority

Leader Mitch McConnell is suddenly vowing a new effort at bipartisanship, but
Carl Hulse explains what’s really driving it. Doug Jones is coming from Alabama:
Mr. McConnell will be presiding over a Senate split 51 to 49 between Republicans
and Democrats, a margin providing him scant room to maneuver. It will be almost
impossible for congressional Republicans to do anything meaningful without at
least modest support from the Democratic side. Another strong motivation exists
as well. Congressional Republicans are heading into a dangerous midterm re-
election that will serve as a referendum on their management of Washington.
Those factors should mean Democrat leverage, which should lead to a humane
solution for the “dreamers” and no Democratic support for an infrastructure plan
that isn’t a real public expenditure.
* KEEP AN EYE ON THESE 10 GOVERNOR’S RACES: Politico has a useful overview
of the top 10 gubernatorial contests of 2018. As Politico notes, “Republicans hold
33 governorships, to just 16 for Democrats,” but amid a bad political
environment, “that could change rapidly next November.”

Note that eight of the top 10 races are in swing or blue states that are currently
held by Republicans but could now flip. This gives Democrats a real shot at
reversing their losses at the state level, which could have real consequences for
the future of Obamacare and House redistricting next decade.

* TRUMP’S NORTH KOREA STRATEGY CARRIES BIG RISKS: Trump says he’s
prepared to strike North Korea’s missiles before launch, which is a more
aggressive posture than aiming to strike them down after launch. Bloomberg
warns:
It’s unclear that the U.S. has the technology or on-the-ground intelligence to
effectively carry out a preemptive strike in that kind of crisis situation. And if it
fails, the result could be an even bloodier conflict. … U.S. systems … still don’t
possess a proven capability of doing that, according to analysts and officials.
Do you trust that Trump will trouble himself about such limitations and downside
risks?
* WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE’S A CRISIS? Paul Krugman notes that the economy is
continuing along the improving trajectory it followed under Barack Obama,
despite the turmoil of the Trump presidency. But in times of crisis, the president
really matters:
Can it last? My answer is that it probably can’t, because the return to normalcy is
fragile. Sooner or later, something will go wrong, and we’re very poorly placed to
respond when it does. … What if something goes wrong in China, or a second
Iranian revolution disrupts oil supplies, or it turns out that tech stocks really are in
a 1999ish bubble? … How confident would you feel in the team of Donald Trump
and Steve Mnuchin?
If the economy did go south, I imagine Trump would not even acknowledge that it
was happening.
* AND TRUMP LIES … AND LIES … AND LIES … AND LIES: Here’s the latest tally of
Trump’s falsehoods and misleading statements, from Glenn Kessler and the Post
fact-checking team:
With just 18 days before President Trump completes his first year as president, he
is now on track to exceed 2,000 false or misleading claims, according to our
database that analyzes, categorizes and tracks every suspect statement uttered
by the president. As of Monday, the total stood at 1,950 claims in 347 days, or an
average of 5.6 claims a day.
From his historic unpopularity to his unprecedented lying, Trump really is
shattering all kinds of records, just as he says he is, except they aren’t the ones he
claims.
Posted by Thavam