The Truth Is More Important Than ConvictionsEditors’ Blog – Talking Points Memo / by Josh Marshall

The Truth Is More Important Than Convictions

Editors’ Blog – Talking Points Memo / by Josh Marshall / 32min

Earlier this week news emerged that Lev Parnas, Rudy Giuliani confederate, has replaced John Dowd as his lawyer and opened discussions with the House about testifying before the on-going impeachment inquiry. Comments from Parnas’s new lawyers point pretty clearly to the conclusion that he’s looking for immunity in exchange for his testimony. The possibility of immunity hearkens back to the Iran-Contra scandal which led to the prosecution and conviction of Oliver North. But in July 1990 a federal court threw out North’s convictions on the basis of the limited immunity Congress had granted him years earlier to compel his testimony.

That outcome led a generation of political and legal minds to believe that Congress erred by getting in the way of a later potential criminal investigation and prosecution. Subsequent congressional probes have bent over backwards not to get in the way of DOJ investigations. But that conventional wisdom is wrong.

Simply stated, in a democracy, a full airing of what actually happened in matters of grave public importance is more important than criminal convictions and judicial punishment. Ideally, we shouldn’t have to choose. But truth – as full an accounting as possible – is unquestionably of greater value.

The cases are not analogous. But the South African Truth and Reconciliation commission is a good example of this. A full airing of facts is more important than securing judicial punishment for all who are guilty. More specifically, it is important politically – both in terms of how a society moves forward and more directly for political consequences.

The importance of knowing what happened – did the President collude with Russia, did he use extortion to force Ukraine to intervene in the 2020 election – is far greater than whether Roger Stone spends a couple years in prison. Equally important, the political consequences are greater for the public to know that one party steadfastly supported a President who recklessly violated the constitution. Unsettled public mysteries about matters of grave public import have a corrosive effect on civic culture over time. Democracies are uniquely reliant on accurate information to function properly, to enforce accountability and correct errors.

The recent revelations about the Mueller investigation make quite clear that his office studiously avoided answering questions it was not explicitly charged with answering. As a prosecutor, that is a salutary discretion. But it gets at the central problem we’ve been dealing with for more than two years. Was the Mueller probe fundamentally a narrowly focused criminal investigation or an effort to inform the public about what happened in a matter of critical national consequence? Seeing Mueller’s restraint up close only tells us that it was fundamentally the former whereas what was always really needed was the latter.

Mainly there was no big congressional investigations because Republicans controlled Congress until less than a year ago. But even the fairly legitimate investigation in the Senate went to great lengths to subordinate itself to the interests of Mueller’s probe, again putting criminal investigations over informing the public.

This is all a mistake. We should try for both. But if we must chose, getting to the truth of what happened is far more important than criminal convictions. Congress shouldn’t give out immunity frivolously or without caution, just as prosecutors should and generally do use immunity or lenience strategically. But if giving some level of immunity to Parnas helps get to the heart of the matter – which seems possible – then the House shouldn’t hesitate to do that. And of course this applies to anyone else the investigators decide could materially help get to the bottom of the story.