The Simple Strategy that's Gutting Congressional Oversight
Who knew it was this easy?
The murder victim was the official preparing to testify. The board of killers, a team who studied the members of the congressional committee. We would gather in a conference room and simulate potential lines of questioning to arm the person testifying with strategies for every foreseeable scenario.
What made this process particularly enjoyable was that you were given full license to act like an asshole towards your boss. You were encouraged to tap into your inner Thespis and make bombastic statements, call out non-answers and contradictions, and broach uncomfortable subjects. The goal was to make the victim/your boss unflappable, and that required a brutally honest process.
I happened to respect my boss at the time, so it wasn’t as therapeutic as some of you may be imagining. Still, there was something delightfully transgressive about the experience. It’s a real treat to make your boss squirm without repercussion, and I hope everyone gets a chance to taste it at least once.
My favorite member of Congress to impersonate was California Republican Dana Rohrabacher. 20 years ago, he was rumored to be on Russia’s payroll, which was novel at the time. He was also the only one I would have called an outright conspiracy theorist. He had a habit of asking bizarre yet difficult to answer questions. Questions that would cause staff like me to fall down rabbit holes searching for accurate information about defunct government programs of no consequence. As an example, Congressman Rohrabacher wanted to know why the U.S. government wasn’t dropping biological agents called mycoherbicide on Afghanistan to destroy their opium poppy fields. While the answer should seem obvious, I nonetheless had to call a U.S. Department of Agriculture facility in Hawaii to learn about decades old research. Then I took what I learned to the lawyers and had them generate an opinion on why the Biological Weapons Convention might frown upon such an approach.
The reason I tell you this story is not to trace back Russian interference in American politics or the birth of conspiracy theories in Republican circles. What I want to highlight is that we took the man seriously and treated his inquiries with respect, even when we rolled our eyes behind his back. When Congressman Rohrabacher launched his broadside, our principal would provide him a short, factual answer which took the question and the questioner seriously. We did this not because we respected the man, but because we respected the voters who elected him and the institution he represented.
Trump Administration officials are taking a slightly different approach these days. They are using a deceptively simple strategy to neuter congressional oversight. I have cherry-picked a few clips from recent congressional hearings to illustrate what I’m talking about.
Here is Attorney General Pam Bondi, the single most powerful law enforcement officer in our country. She feigns outrage to avoid answering a question about the President’s cryptocurrency project being used as an avenue for foreign influence.
Here is Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem. Instead of answering whether she is complying with a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling, she accuses a U.S. Senator of advocating for a foreign terrorist.
Here is Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. He invokes the Bible to avoid answering whether the American military has been given orders to use lethal force against protesters in Los Angeles.
It’s tempting to chalk these officials’ outbursts up to their general demeanors. I have heard comments that Secretary Hegseth’s body language and speech patterns reflect those of an abusive alcoholic. Attorney General Bondi’s tirade was termed a “breakdown” in some media accounts. Sadly, how these officials are behaving is more than a reflection of their character flaws. There is a method to the madness. What appears to be incompetence and bile is, in my opinion, a form of low cunning.
These officials presumably went through murder boards as well. Except, their process was inverted from the one I described at the beginning of this essay. Whereas we would coach the witness to use formal titles and be forthright with Congress, they are being coached to shout, filibuster, engage in theatrics, and make sweeping claims of executive privilege. It’s a purposeful strategy of non-cooperation.
Oversight is one of the primary functions of the legislative branch. Congress must be able to peer into the workings of the other branches of government. Otherwise, how could it hold officials accountable to the laws of the land, inform the public of its government’s actions, and verify the public’s money is well spent?
Congressional oversight is an implied power not specifically enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. It derives from the legislative branch’s Article I responsibility “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
That doesn’t mean the executive branch is required to be a completely open book. The President has his own implied power called executive privilege. Those words don’t appear in the U.S. Constitution either, but are generally derived from the principle of separation of powers between the co-equal branches. It gives the President the authority to withhold certain information from Congress or the courts when disclosing such information would impede the performance of executive functions.
Historically, executive privilege was confined to candid conversations between the President and his aides, and the protection of national security information or ongoing investigations. As with all things in the Trump Administration, this power has been asserted in the extreme to withhold information that would not have previously been considered privileged.
When you combine sweeping claims of executive privilege with ridiculous theatrics and bellicose behavior, Congress has little ability to gain insight into the executive branch’s functioning. Congress could vote to hold an official in contempt, but doing so is meaningless unless the Department of Justice (DOJ) decides to prosecute the individual. As long as Pam Bondi runs a recalcitrant and politicized DOJ, Congress has limited options. These include exerting pressure by withholding funding, passing stricter laws, or holding up nominations. Even if Congress changed hands and Democrats gained control, there is still little that could be done to stop the Trump Administration’s asshole strategy.
The effectiveness of something so simple, is what unsettles me most. Our institutions, which survived more or less intact for almost 250 years, are crumbling at an alarming rate. I never appreciated the degree to which we relied on nothing more than a shared belief in their authority and permanence. All it took to dispel this illusion were people willing to act like assholes.
Not a single bullet has been fired. No state has seceded from the union. No elections have been cancelled, nor martial law declared. Yet, our institutions are becoming unrecognizable. Instead of a violent revolution, we have witnessed an attack on our collective psychology. What was once accepted is now questioned. What was considered settled is open for interpretation. Previous taboos are now embraced.
Once an illusion is shattered, it’s hard to believe ever again.
Blake