Decrying special counsel Robert S. Mueller III as “conflicted,” and showing that his declassification decision was driven by extreme partisan politics, the president only adds to the pile of evidence that his handling of the Russia investigation has been a series of attempts to hinder, derail and end the investigation into himself and his cronies — many of whom have either pleaded guilty or been convicted of felonies. His assertion in the interview that he “does not have an attorney general” underscores his view that the position should function as his political flunky, not someone empowered to defend the Constitution and enforce federal laws.

AD

AD

As we have experienced time and again, Trump’s ranting did not draw GOP condemnation or even interest. Imagine if a party interested in defending the reputation of law enforcement, in holding the president accountable for his actions and investigating wrongdoing, had the majority in one or both houses of Congress.

First, one would see resolutions condemning the loony, unfair allegations. Congress would defend the rule of law, stress the importance of completing the ongoing Russia investigation and advise the White House that any effort to fire Mueller, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein and/or install a flunky to replace Sessions would be opposed. If Democrats had a Senate majority, the president would be advised that no attorney general nominee would be confirmed until Mueller completes his work.

Second, you would see legislation to protect the special counsel, akin to the measure that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 14-to-7 vote. Debate on the Senate floor would help disabuse the public of the notion that Mueller’s inquiry is a “witch hunt” (with so many convictions and guilty pleas, Trump’s “witch hunt” line sounds increasingly inane).

Third, you’d have real oversight hearings. Intelligence officials would be questioned about the process for declassification and the harm that might ensue when documents of an ongoing national security investigation are released. Both current and former officials could explain the unprecedented nature of the action.

AD

AD

Finally, you would see exacting oversight over the matters the FBI and Justice Department have yet to examine — the president’s receipt of foreign emoluments (which Congress could and should vote to disallow), conflicts of interest, rampant corruption among senior officials (e.g., former Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt), and allegations against FEMA chief Brock Long. In other words, you would see increased scrutiny of the president, not less.