Struck tonight, June 7, 2017, by this thought: That the three most memorable things I have heard in federal proceedings in my life, literally heard — and known on hearing them that they represented historic watershed moments — that those three most memorable things are now these:
Attorney Joseph Welch to Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy in 1954 (yes, I was a kid but I was watching that afternoon, live because oh for sure it mattered in the home I grew up in): “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”
Sen. Howard Baker in 1974: “What did the president know and when did he know it?”
Sen. Angus King 2017: “What you feel isn’t relevant, admiral. What you feel is not the answer. The answer is, why are you not answering the questions? Is it an invocation of executive privilege. If there is, let’s hear about it. If there isn’t, answer the questions.”
There were until now two American legislative proceedings moments in sound.
The first pretty much stripped any shred of legitimacy from McCarthy, unmasked him as a brutal fraud (and we know now a dependent drunk) and began the end of his rampant tyranny (but not the end of that of his chief henchman, Roy Cohn, a virus in the body politic who schooled a young Donald Trump in the art of demagoguery.)
The second signaled the beginning of the end for Richard M. Nixon and, sure enough, a year later he became the first and — so far — only occupant of the American presidency to resign that august office in disgrace.
From today there are three defining American federal proceedings moments. We know where the first two took us and their impact in and on our nation’s history.
We will see where the third takes the nation and how it is remembered in and by history.
But there’s a fair chance that “What you feel, Admiral, isn’t relevant…” will take its place as a defining moment.
Peeling the Onion 
I wondered why the senators did not threaten reprisal for the recalcitrant witnesses. Turns out their options are pretty limited. They can request the executive branch, of which these witnesses are administrators, to enforce reprisal, or they can refer it to the courts, which takes time, or they can hold their own trial, which obviously involves time and complications. So if none of those seems viable they can only pontificate about the witnesses duty.
I wonder also why none of these witnesses suggested they were withholding their testimony in deference to the investigation of the special counsel. That would make some sense, so why did none of them use that justification? Unless perhaps they intend to stonewall the special counsel as well?
Alex
________________________________
LikeLike
Good questions. Probably for lawyers. It was a dramatic moment. Who knows where all this will go. It causes great unease.
LikeLike