Most of the witnesses being interviewed by the Senate and House
committees investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election have
been granted a remarkable courtesy. The norm in Washington is for
testimony to be conducted before cameras in a public setting, where
congressmen and senators compete for attention and interrogate witnesses
in the hopes of achieving a viral “gotcha” moment. But in recent weeks several figures central to the investigation, including Jared Kushner and Donald Trump, Jr., have been allowed to sit for interviews behind
closed doors.
The closed-door interview has become the unfortunate new norm, in which
the public is denied insight into an important investigation. Roger
Stone, Trump’s longtime on-again, off-again adviser, who is scheduled to
testify before the House Intelligence Committee next week, requested a
public hearing but was told it would be closed. The private
conversations seem to be the product of a bipartisan agreement:
Democrats get the witnesses they want, and Republicans are able to reduce
the anti-Trump spectacle of the hearings. But what is lost is the
transparency Americans have come to expect from congressional
investigations going back decades—Watergate, Iran-Contra, the various
Clinton scandals, the 9/11 Commission. The investigation by the special
counsel, Robert Mueller, will remain behind closed doors and
confidential until its conclusion, as is common of probes into potential
criminal conduct. But the various congressional committees are looking
at the broader implications of Russia’s attack on our democracy, an
inquiry that cries out for open testimony as a way to inform the public.
Unlike the aggressive congressional investigations of Watergate and
Iran-Contra, today’s private interviews have afforded witnesses in the
Russia investigation with a unique opportunity. Both Kushner and Trump,
Jr., released long public statements that were not subject to tough
cross-examination in public by members of the committee. The statements
have become increasingly fatuous and more like press releases. Kushner’s statement was filled with pabulum about a life and career dedicated to quiet
public service.
“First in my business and now in public service, I have worked on
achieving goals, and have left it to others to work on media and public
perception,” Kushner said, clearly trying to shape public perception.
His statement strayed far away from the pertinent questions of
collusion. “Donald Trump had the right vision for America and delivered
his message perfectly,” Kushner wrote of his father-in-law. “The results
speak for themselves.”
Trump, Jr.,’s statement actually included fewer Trump-like boasts about the greatness of the
campaign and the size of Trump’s victory. (Though he did note that his
father “was fortunate to prevail in New Hampshire, South Carolina,
Nevada, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts and many other
states.”) But after Trump, Jr.,’s private testimony, congressional
investigators were reportedly frustrated with some gaps in the
chronology of events in his public statement. In an arrangement that
favors witnesses, rules have barred members of the committee from
discussing the interviews, but witnesses are free to release
increasingly bold pre-testimony statements brimming with posturing and
spin.
After Trump, Jr., the Senate Intelligence Committee decided that it had
had enough of witnesses releasing long, self-serving statements before
they went behind closed doors for a private grilling. Richard Burr, the
chairman of the committee, and Mark Warner, the ranking member, demanded
that witnesses refrain from making any public comments.
The first test of that new rule came on Tuesday. Michael Cohen, Trump’s
longtime lawyer at the Trump Organization, was scheduled for a
closed-door interview before members and staff of Burr and Warner’s
committee. Cohen is of interest to investigators because he was the man
behind the attempt in 2015 and 2016 to build a Trump tower in Moscow,
at the time that Trump was running for President and denying any connections to
Russia. Taking his cues from Kushner and Trump, Jr., Cohen released his
thousand-word opening statement to the press before he met with investigators.
Taking a meandering, conspiratorial, and combative tone, Cohen denied
any wrongdoing and attacked the author of the infamous Trump dossier,
which mentioned Cohen repeatedly and included an unfounded allegation
that he met with Russians to discuss the election on a surreptitious
trip to Prague. “Let me tell you where I was on the day the dossier said
I was in Prague,” Cohen wrote. “I was in Los Angeles with my son who
dreams of playing division 1 baseball next year at a prestigious
university like USC.”
The statement was filled with even more hyperbole, grievance, and spin
than those of the previous witnesses, with other references to Cohen’s
wife and children, and the requisite paean to Trumpism being under
siege. “Many Trump-supporting Americans are also paying this cost,” he
said, suggesting that he was being targeted because of his support for Trump.
“Like the twelve-year-old child in Missouri who was beaten up for
wearing a Make America Great Again hat.”
Soon after Cohen arrived on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, he slipped behind
closed doors to begin his testimony. Unexpectedly, he left about an hour
later. Burr and Warner were so aggravated by his violation of their ban
on pre-testimony spin that they cancelled Cohen’s appearance.
“We were disappointed that Mr. Cohen decided to pre-empt today’s
interview by releasing a public statement prior to his engagement with
Committee staff,” the senators said in a statement. “As a result, we
declined to move forward with today’s interview.” They added, “The
Committee expects witnesses in this investigation to work in good faith
with the Senate.”
Cohen is scheduled to return to the committee late next month. The
testimony will be done in public—the way it should be.