How Democrats Should Start Planning Their Trump Investigations

President Donald Trump walks to Air Force One at Morristown Airport in New Jersey on Sunday. Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP

If the Democrats manage to win either the House or the Senate in November—and I’m not counting chickens before they hatch—they will have a hard choice to make: what investigations to mount.

In less than two years, Donald Trump and his crew have racked up a record number of scandals worthy of congressional probes. From selling presidential pardons to denying disaster aid to Democratic-led states. From the Reflecting Pool no-bid contract to Trump’s acceptance of the $400 million aircraft from Qatar (a violation of the Constitution’s emoluments clause). One problem with Trump is that he has engaged in so much outrageous wrongdoing that it’s hard to focus too long on any individual act of corruption and abuse. The firehose never shuts off, and each new scandal distracts from the previous outrages. The zone is flooded. We’re underwater.

Just as the never-ending blitz of Trump transgressions is so overwhelming that it’s hard to keep track of every episode of improbity or illegality, the same could happen with a deluge of investigations. A wide-ranging Democratic probe-apalooza could be too much for the public to absorb and foster the impression that Democrats are more fixated on Trump’s malfeasance than on the problems faced by Americans (such as affordability, housing, and health care)—which is the predictable criticism Trump and Republicans will hurl at them.

This is not to say that committees and subcommittees should give Trump a pass on any of his misconduct and possible crimes. But more so than they’ve done in the past, Democrats ought to coordinate their investigative endeavors, prioritizing the most potent probes and calculating how best to present them to the public. Democratic leaders need to guarantee that the most competent committee and subcommittee chairs are in charge of the most pressing investigations.

What are the top targets for Democratic gumshoes? This is not going to be a matter on which agreement is easily reached. But they should zero in on topics that voters already care about and that cover the Trump actions that most threaten democracy, subvert decency, and undermine the rule of law—that most put on display Trump’s incompetence, personal corruption, and venality.

If the Democrats get the chance to investigate the administration—and can issue subpoenas and haul in witnesses—there will be an everything-everywhere-all-at-once quality to their oversight efforts. But here are my recommendations for the specific inquiries to highlight, in no special order.

The Ballroom. Trump’s teardown of the East Wing of the White House to make room for a gigantic ballroom symbolizes his vanity crusade to construct tributes to his own misperceived greatness. It’s a reminder that he sees the presidency as more about him than the rest of the nation. He initially claimed the $400 million price tag would be covered by private donations. That was problematic because wealthy individuals and corporations with interests before the Trump administration could win his favor by kicking in. But the latest news is that the cost will be $900 million and that taxpayers will be stuck with the tab. Trump, according to the Washington Post, is using shady means to funnel funds to this project without seeking congressional approval. This all deserves scrutiny.

Crypto. In the first year of his second term, Trump, once a critic of cryptocurrency, has pocketed $2 billion due to his family’s new crypto business, World Liberty Financial. This venture—in which Trump’s firm can accept whopping payments from anonymous sources, including overseas governments and officials—has created the potential for huge and historic conflicts of interest. The New York Times recently reported that a failed hardwood floor retailer in Britain became one of the biggest buyers of tokens from WLF, to the tune of $100 million. It sure looks like this guy was fronting for someone who wanted to hand Trump’s firm a ton of money. Who the hell is behind this?

There are plenty of other questions about Trump’s crypto business, and an investigation could also cover his trading of stocks in companies he talks up and that are influenced by government actions, as well as his social media company, Trump Media & Technology Group, selling early access to his posts—the equivalent of insider trading. And let’s not forget all the wheeling-and-dealing done by Jared Kushner, Donald Trump Jr., and Eric Trump, who each have exploited their White House access to make a bundle in multiple questionable ventures. The Democrats who take this on will need waders. The muck is deep.

DOGE. Trump’s Elon Musk-guided crusade to downsize the federal government was a disaster. Musk and his crew claimed they saved taxpayers $110 billion. But that was bunk. A recent Government Accountability Office report noted that there’s no solid confirmation of this figure—or many of their purported savings. And there have been a series of exposés over the past year showing how DOGE decimated necessary government services—such as tax collection—and in many instances ended up costing taxpayers money. DOGE also compromised important data and demolished programs that did much good, such as USAID. (An estimated 800,000 adults and children have died due to DOGE’s assault on US foreign assistance.) There needs to be a full accounting of the run-a-Musk DOGE disaster.

Jeffrey Epstein. The Justice Department still has not released all its Epstein files. There are ongoing court challenges on this front. A congressional probe could determine if records that have been held back—or redacted—ought to be made public. And the Justice Department’s handling of the files warrants a close look. Has it tried to cover up material and protect Trump or others? Why did Attorney General Todd Blanche meet with Ghislaine Maxwell, and why was she moved to a cushy prison camp after their tête-à-tête? Links between Epstein and assorted plutocrats and politicians—such as Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick—are still ripe for probing.

ICE and CBP. Trump has turned ICE and CBP into secret police forces akin to what’s found in dictatorial regimes. Virtually all aspects of their operations—including the killings of Renée Good and Alex Pretti—need strict examination. The orders and quotas they have received from the White House, their rules of engagement, their contracting, their targeting priorities, their treatment of prisoners and deportees. From top to bottom. (And don’t forget the $50,000 in cash Tom Homan got in a paper bag as an alleged bribe.)

The Iran War. The lack of planning and policymaking prior to the war. The incompetent negotiations mounted by Kushner and Steve Witkoff before and after the attack—and Vice President JD Vance’s involvement in the fruitless talks during the conflict. The true casualty count. The civilian deaths. The mismanagement of supplies, arms, and the troops (such as the depletion of interceptor missiles and the conditions on the USS Lincoln). The failure to prepare for the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The Iran War is pure Trump—an impetuous act that has caused economic pain at home and abroad, created chaos, and weakened the United States’ standing around the world. Every piece of this debacle demands investigation.

The Justice Department. Trump has turned the Justice Department into his own personal revenge squad, demanding it pursue his enemies and detractors. This is one of his most outlandish abuses of power. He has fired prosecutors who refused to go along with his vendettas. After the case against the former Olympic canoeist absurdly accused of vandalizing the Reflecting Pool was dropped, he insisted it be revived—and it might be. The trumped-up criminal investigations of former FBI Director Jim Comey and other past Obama and Biden national security officials are a perversion of the rule of law (as was his pardon of the January 6 rioters). Congressional hearings with ex-prosecutors and other officials who have said no to Trump’s campaign of vengeance could be dynamite—as well as those involved in the rotten deal that tried to set up that $1.8 billion weaponization fund and grant Trump, Don Jr., Eric Trump, and their family business immunity for past and present tax claims. (And let’s bring back the police officers brutalized by the J6ers.)

There’s so much more for Democrats to dig into. But they ought to lead with the subjects with the most potential to spotlight Trump’s corruption, greed, and ineptitude. And they should figure out how to conduct these investigations on a speedier basis than the usual congressional action and stagger hearings and findings so the various probes don’t distract from each other.

Should the Ds gain the majority in the House, there will be pressure on them to pursue what would be the third impeachment of Trump. It might be wise for them to resist leading with that and, instead, develop these other investigations to fully expose Trump’s misconduct and misdeeds—and those of his compatriots. Trump and his cultists will seize on any early talk of impeachment—a process the American public usually does not favor—and try to use it to discredit these inquiries. If these investigations are well executed, a case for impeachment will arise on its own.

The January 6 investigation that the House Democrats ran when they last held the majority offers a good example. That inquiry produced new revelations. The hearings, held in the evening, drew larger television audiences. Unfortunately, the committee was forced to release its final report during the holiday season, as that congressional session ran out of time and the Republicans gained control.

Though the quality of congressional investigations has declined over the past few decades—we can discuss the reasons for that another time—the J6 endeavor showed the Ds could largely get it right. If they only capture the House, the Dems will not be able to pass legislation and will have a tough time blocking Trump’s worst moves and nominees. They will have the power to investigate him and his cronies and expose an ocean of wrongdoing. Now’s the time to start thinking about how not to screw that up.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland.corn@gmail.com.

For all OurLanders on Cape Cod, I will be speaking at the Truro Meeting House on Saturday, August 22, at 7:00 p.m. Come join a discussion about the midterms, as well as (of course) my forthcoming book, How Russia Won: Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and the Fight for America. Admission is free. (For more information, click here.) If you drop by, be sure to say hello. And if you haven’t yet checked out info on the book, go to HowRussiaWon.com.

House of the Dragon. The third season of House of the Dragon, HBO’s Game of Thrones prequel, just concluded, and it deserves our thanks for serving as a powerful reminder of what makes for great television. Not that it was great television. In fact, it’s pedestrian and, compared to GoT, rather disappointing. The series focuses on a succession fight for the Iron Throne between House Targaryen and the Hightower clan. After Viserys I Targaryen, the king of the Seven Kingdoms, dies, his daughter, Rhaenyra, whom he had daringly named his heir (she’s a woman!), is usurped, as Alicent Hightower, her childhood pal who married her father, claims Viserys, on his deathbed, changed his mind and declared that Aegon, a son he had with Alicent, should rule. A war of succession ensues, with intrigue, armies, and dragons.

Yet why root for either side? It doesn’t appear to matter who wins. And this reveals the flaw of the series: There’s not much reason to care about these characters. Yes, Rhaenyra was screwed, the victim of Seven Kingdoms patriarchy. Presumably, we ought to be in her corner. But she’s not that interesting. And—spoiler alert—when she finally regains the throne, she spends more time whining about how hard it is to govern than figuring out how to surmount the obstacles she faces. She also yields to the temptation to exert a heavy (and bloody) hand to consolidate power. Her uncle/husband, Daemon Targaryen, is a mighty warrior but a true asshole who goes his own way. Alicent evokes little sympathy, Aegon is a brat, and her other son, Aemond, is a vicious prince who tries to kill Aegon to gain the crown.

The show lacks the essential ingredient of Game of Thrones: well-developed, multifaceted characters with skillfully crafted arcs. In HotD, the gang goes through the motions, as the battle for the realm proceeds. Few experience change along the way—though Rhaenyra does yield to the dark side. In contrast, it was a joy to follow the travails of GoT players. Jon Snow, Tyrion Lannister, Jaime Lannister, Arya Stark, Samwell Tarly—each of these characters, as well as many others, were complicated people facing their own challenges, as they were involved in the larger intrigues. They grew and changed as the story developed. Some deserved to be cheered on; others were simply fascinating, even hard to figure out. And throughout its eight seasons, Game of Thrones delivered secondary characters who were as deeply realized as the main ones. Remember Brienne of Tarth?

Additionally, Game of Thrones had much more at stake than House of the Dragon. Winter was coming, along with a zombie army that could destroy the Seven Kingdoms. Thus, the fight for the crown meant more than who got to sit on a throne made of swords. It could determine whether the humans would withstand the pending invasion. (This theme reflected our modern-day problem of climate change.) House of the Dragon, which occurs nearly two centuries before the GoT timeline, is merely a face-off between two wings of a blended and dysfunctional family. Big whoop.

Yet this is not what makes it meh. HotD demonstrates that the best television—and the best drama—is character-driven. The setting, the plot, the dialogue—all that is important. But if you don’t give a damn about the people on the screen, the rest doesn’t matter. It’s somewhat surprising that the team that nailed this with Game of Thrones falls short for the prequel. House of the Dragon features impressive battle scenes and plenty of political scheming—like its predecessor—but its characters don’t compel attention. It’s left to the computer-generated dragons to light up the screen.

“Cocaine Walking, Booze Talking,” Richard Thompson. If there were a musician whose talents I could steal and make my own, it might be Richard Thompson, the virtuoso guitarist, magnificent songwriter, and splendid performer. As a member of Fairport Convention in the 1960s, he helped create folk rock, and for decades afterward he produced stellar albums as a duo with his then-wife, Linda Thompson, and then as a solo artist. He is simply one of the best guitarists of the past six decades, and at 77, he continues to deliver fine songs and masterful albums.

Late last month, he released a new track from his forthcoming album, Hippies, Thugs and Heroes. “Cocaine Walking, Booze Talking,” a tale of folks hustling in London. It features his usual guitar artistry and continues his tradition of writing engaging character-centered songs. (See “1952 Vincent Black Lightning.”) This number demonstrates that Thompson is still one of rock’s guitar heroes and remains a potent songwriting force. Expectations ought to be high for the album to come.