Tom Sullivan at Digby’s blog posted an interesting idea on how the Senate Dems might handle the upcoming Barrett hearings, given that they are numerically powerless to stop Republicans from confirming the judge. Sullivan says the concept originated on history prof Bill Svelmoe’s FB page, and the gist is to turn the hearings into The Trump Show, with Democrats using examples of Trump admin malfeasance to elicit responses on legal questions. An excerpt:
Judge Barrett, would you please explain the emoluments clause in the Constitution. [She does.] Judge Barrett, if a president were to refuse to divest himself of his properties and, in fact, continue to steer millions of dollars of tax payer money to his properties, would this violate the emoluments clause?
Then simply go down the list of specific cases in which Trump and his family of grifters have used the presidency to enrich themselves. Ask her repeatedly if this violates the emoluments clause. Include of course using the American ambassador to Britain to try to get the British Open golf tournament at a Trump property. Judge Barrett, does this violate the emoluments clause?
It’s not a bad idea. The Trump admin is one long carnival of criminality, so the Dems wouldn’t run out of source material: Hatch Act violations, refusal to comply with congressional oversight, the Ukraine shake-down, family separations at the border, etc.
As Svelmoe put it, flipping the script this way would weaponize Barrett’s “supposed good character and keen legal mind against the administration that has nominated her. Let her either convict Trump or embarrass herself by trying to weasel out of convicting Trump. Either way, it’ll be great television …”
Sounds like a solid idea. What say you? Open thread.