Contempt of Congress
Intelligence officials shouldn’t be allowed to stonewall
Again and again Wednesday at the hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats and National Security Agency Director Adm. Michael Rogers refused to answer direct questions as to whether they had been asked by President Donald Trump to interfere with the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign’s connections with Russia.
In response to Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Susan Collins, R-Maine, Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., and Angus King, I-Maine, they said theydid not feel “pressured” and/or “directed” but declined to say whether they were asked. FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe also refused to say if he had conversations with former FBI Director James Comey about his conversations with the president. Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein refused to explain how and why Attorney General Jeff Sessions un-recused himself from the Russia investigation when Mr. Comey was fired and whether Mr. Rosenstein understood his memo about Mr. Comey would be used to fire the FBI director.
None of these witnesses invoked executive privilege or national security. They just didn’t want to answer.
Mr. King finally blew up, scolding Adm. Rogers that what he “feels” isn’t relevant. He demanded to know why Adm. Rogers and Mr. Coats were not answering. He demanded a “legal justification” for not answering, and the witnesses did not supply one. Mr. Coats hinted he would share information, just not in public, and that he would cooperate with the special prosecutor.
This is outrageous. Congress has an independent obligation to conduct oversight. Witnesses cannot simply decide they don’t want to share. If they could, there would be no oversight.
While they were not under subpoena, the behavior of those testifying yesterday was contemptuous and unprecedented. The committee has the option to subpoena witnesses, demand answers and then hold them in contempt if they decline to answer. (Is that what the witnesses are hoping for, so they will be seen as having no choice?) It is hard to see any reason why Congress should not do so.
A source familiar with his thinking told me, “Sen. Heinrich will seek to get answers one way or another.”
Should Republicans not take these steps, the conclusion should be obvious: They are acting to protect the president from public embarrassment. In doing so, they are demonstrating a lack of respect both for the public and Congress, a branch of government coequal to the executive.
All of these witnesses and other White House officials act as if they work for the president, not the American people. This is unacceptable in a functional democracy and would, if perpetuated, do serious damage to our democratic system.
They need to tell the truth, the whole truth. Transparency and honesty cannot be optional for members of the executivebranch.