Rubin (WaPo): Here's what the House Judiciary Committee should do
This seems like a good strategy. Thoughts?
Here’s what the House Judiciary Committee should do
By Jennifer Rubin
Opinion writer
May 21 at 2:30 PM
As anticipated, former White House counsel Donald McGahn knuckled under to President Trump’s pressure — intimidation, if you will — and did not show up in response to a lawful subpoena issued by the House Judiciary Committee.
The Post reported: “Democrats hoped McGahn would become a star witness in their investigation into whether Trump obstructed justice, given that the former White House counsel delivered critical testimony in several instances of potential obstruction by Trump detailed in the report by special counsel Robert. S. Mueller III.” Pressure is building among House Democrats to press on with impeachment hearings. Their anger is understandable. But before embarking on such a monumental step that will not lead to Trump’s removal and could even enhance his reelection chances, Democrats should refocus their strategy....
The committee chairman then did what has been long overdue — pivot from the separation-of-powers fight (certainly serious but, perhaps, not compelling to average voters) to begin to highlight for voters what is in the Mueller report. That is what Trump fears, namely that Americans will start doing what Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) did and read or otherwise learn what is in the report. A tiny sliver of the electorate will read any of the report, let alone all of it. That’s what hearings are for....
Take 10 days, one for each category of obstruction, and call forward panels comprised of the some of the more than 900 former prosecutors who signed a letter saying they would indict Trump if he were not protected by Justice Department guidelines barring indictment of a sitting president. Use visual aids with short excerpts of the report. Have the former prosecutors explain how Trump’s behavior in the category of the day meets the definition of obstruction.
Oddly, this goes on already — on non-Fox cable news shows — when many of these same former prosecutors show up to explain the Mueller report. Unfortunately, hundreds of millions of people don’t watch these shows. Bringing in panels of prosecutors on 10 consecutive days to explain the mound of evidence — including evidence of corrupt intent — would do more to advance public understanding and move opinion than any other tool at the House’s disposal. It would also stop Republicans from giving lame excuses such as “There’s no evidence of intent.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/21/heres-what-house-judiciary-committee-should-do/?utm_term=.b6af4ff23ee1
= new reply since forum marked as read
Bring all that out in the open with both republican and Democratic prosecutors. Get creative ffs.
Thank you for posting this. 
