ROLL FROM BOTTOM:

Investigations have a certain rhythm: You begin with solid leads, use subpoenas to compel testimony or documents from reticent witnesses, interview lower-level witnesses first and then move on to higher-level targets. Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee did none of these things before shutting down their Russia investigation last week. [...]

If the committee Republicans intended to conduct a serious investigation, the path was obvious. They would have interviewed key witnesses like George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, KT McFarland and scores of others, and compelled answers from those we did interview but who refused to answer our questions. 

Instead, they uniformly refused Democratic requests to subpoena travel, bank, calendar, phone and Twitter Direct Message records. Witness interviews were rushed and scheduled haphazardly with no apparent order. Often the most important witnesses were brought in first (like Jared Kushner), and frequently before witnesses provided documents we needed to inform our questions.

During interviews, Republican lawmakers followed a familiar pattern. They would ask each witness the "three C's" as they became known: "Did you collude, conspire, or coordinate with Russia?" If a witness answered "no," all too often that was the end of the matter for Republicans. It's like asking the getaway driver if he robbed the bank and accepting "no" for an answer, rather than asking why he owned the car used in the heist, why his alibi didn't check out, or why marked bills were found in his house.

The fundamental un-seriousness of the Republican majority was most glaring when witnesses simply refused to answer, asserting non-existent, overly broad or farcical claims of privilege, or giving no basis at all. In permitting witnesses to choose their questions, the majority made a serious investigation impossible, and hobbled future congressional oversight by setting a terrible precedent. 

Tweet   @brothersjudd