Now that we have experienced the election miracle of last Tuesday night, where the Democrats won control of the both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, the real work must begin.  The Dems must expeditiously address and make substantial progress on the economic issues which were called “affordability issues” during the campaign, as well as the allegations of deep-seeded corruption which may have been the accelerant for the large democratic turnout.

The affordability issues are thornier and more complex, but they are straightforward.  There is a dire need to help people in the areas of housing, shrinking healthcare coverage, the cost of gas and diesel fuel, rising inflation – not to mention the need for a fair and rational immigration plan.  The Dems have skilled leaders in both the House and the Senate who seem poised and ready to address these complex issues after what will surely be a robust debate.  Unlike the Trump administration, which feared debate about any complex issue, robust debate almost always sharpens the issues and brings about a better solution.

But it is the issue of “accountability” for a litany of seemingly corrupt or unethical actions which will require surgical precision by the House and Senate committees handling these explosive issues.   It is critically important that investigations proceed with all deliberate speed, but do not take on the flavor of a lynch mob trying to desperately even the score.  If the hearings appear out of control, like the frenzy of the French Revolution, the Dems will look no better than Trump, Miller and their cohorts.

Much has been written about the potential areas of investigation, but these are the situations that strike me as ripe for rigorous scrutiny:

• The amount of money that Trump and his entire family have made from cryptocurrency, including the $1.6 billion that Trump personally reported.  (No president in our history has ever made so much money when in office.)
• The stock trading and business deals that the Trump family engaged in once Trump took office for a second term, including the fact that a portion of Donald Trump, Jr.’s wedding was paid for by a Russian oligarch.  (What we know now may only be the “tip of the iceberg.”)
• The no-bid contracts reportedly given to big Republican contributors.  (Whether these contracts were necessary and given at a reasonable cost.)
• The pardon industry: rumors abound about large contributions being made by or on behalf of people criminally charged who ultimately received pardons for some inexplicable reason. (How were these decisions made and by whom?)

The potential inquiries into possible graft and corruption present a target-rich environment.  But digging out the information for a Congressional committee is a time consuming process which requires extensive “pick and shovel” work before any hearings commence.   Frequently, as with the January 6^th Committee, there may be months of hearings on a periodic basis.

The Congressional hearings will expose the facts and whether or not there were any potential criminal violations, and here is where the situation will get complicated.  I do not have the slightest doubt that when President Trump leaves office he will issue an avalanche of pardons for anybody who ever worked for the White House, entered the White House or acted on behalf of the White House. The pardons will legally have two limitations: (1) the pardons can only be effective up until the date the pardon is issued and not afterwards, so any subsequent false swearing or obstruction of justice would not be covered; and (2) the pardons will protect against federal prosecutions but not state prosecutions in aggressive states such as NY, NJ, CA, IL, and GA.

Since the Executive Branch controls the Department of Justice, it will not be until 2029 before criminal prosecutions could possibly be brought.  But it is also possible that sooner or later some “insiders” will break and tell the full story as to what happened in a given area.  This may trigger the truth I first learned in Hudson County many decades ago: a person is indicted by his enemies, but convicted by his friends – or former friends