The Importance Of Adam Schiff
 |
Opinion Columnist
|
|
The Democrats don’t have a stellar recent record of conducting congressional hearings.
|
They couldn’t figure out how to respond effectively to Brett Kavanaugh’s righteous anger or to ask some of the probing follow-up questions that his testimony raised. Democrats also struggled this year to turn hearings on the Russia scandal into the kind of compelling television that would move public opinion. |
What’s the problem? Many members of Congress (in both parties) don’t understand how to conduct a hearing in a way that changes perceptions. They grandstand or give long soliloquies. In the case of the current Democratic Party, it doesn’t help that some of the highest-profile committee members, in both the House and Senate, are in their 70s or 80s and are no longer as sharp as they once were.
|
The House’s impeachment inquiry has presented Democrats with a chance to learn from their mistakes. It’s vital that they do.
|
Party leaders, starting with Nancy Pelosi, should exert enough control over the process to make sure skilled questioners are in the prime roles. If that means hurting the feelings of some Democrats who want to play a high-profile role, so be it. And if it means outsourcing some of the questioning to staff attorneys rather than members of Congress, that’s fine, too. The stakes are too high.
|
To that end, I am glad to see that the party has given a central role to Adam Schiff of California, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He’s a much more effective questioner and speaker than most members of the judiciary or oversight committees.
|
Schiff made a rare misstep yesterday, by starting the hearing with an unnecessary hypothetical description of what President Trump might have said on his call with Ukraine’s president, which led to widespread criticism in conservative media. But his overall performance was strong. He is one of the most important assets that the Democratic Party and the country have right now. |
Schiff’s “tone, framing and focus on the facts are perfect and should be a model for everything that follows over the next several months,” David Rothkopf, a foreign affairs expert, wrote yesterday. |
Schiff “is focused like a laser on national security. That’s at the heart of why Trump must be impeached. He endangers the nation for his own benefit,” Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School wrote this week. |
“Schiff is a triathlete, a screenwriter and a vegan,” Tom McCarthy of The Guardian wrote earlier this year. |
“Schiff, whose district stretches the four points of the compass around the Hollywood sign, is no stranger to partisan tumult — his congressional career was born in it. In 2000, he unseated the Republican incumbent, James Rogan, one of the House managers in the impeachment of Bill Clinton,” Todd S. Purdum wrote in The Atlantic. |
Schiff’s questioning of Robert Mueller in July received rave reviews. Schiff “is really really good at this. Both in making statements that are succinct & impactful & also in questioning,” said Mimi Rocah, a former federal prosecutor. Tom Nichols, the national security expert, added: “Schiff’s five minutes and Mueller’s answers would have been enough for Republicans to impeach and convict any other president before sundown today.” |
“Impeachment is an extraordinary remedy, not to be entertained lightly, and in the case of a president, would mean putting the country through a deeply wrenching process. It is instead a remedy that must be considered soberly, mindful of the fact that removing a president from office should be the recourse for only the most serious transgressions,” Schiff wrote in a Times Op-Ed in May last year. |
If you enjoy this newsletter, forward it to friends!
|
They can sign up for themselves here — and they don’t need to be a Times subscriber. The newsletter is published every weekday, with help from my colleague Ian Prasad Philbrick. |
No comments:
Post a Comment