What Recourse Does the Republic Have in a Situation Like This?

Charles P. Pierce
Photo credit: NICHOLAS KAMM - Getty Images

From Esquire

Apparently, the closed-door hearing of the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday into the matter of the president*'s "promise" to a foreign leader went just as expected. Michael Atkinson, the inspector general for the intelligence community, appeared before the committee and told it that, well, he was very sorry, but it continues to be the administration*'s opinion that the committee is obliged to continue to pound sand. From The New York Times:

Democrats emerged from Mr. Atkinson’s briefing and renewed their accusation that the Trump administration was orchestrating a cover-up of an urgent and legitimate whistle-blower complaint that could affect national security. Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told reporters after the briefing that he still did not know the contents of the complaint and had been unable to get an answer to whether the White House was involved in suppressing it.

“I don’t think this is a problem of the law,” he said. “I think the law is written very clearly. I think the law is just fine. The problem lies elsewhere. And we’re determined to do everything we can to determine what this urgent concern is, to make sure that the national security is protected and to make sure that this whistle-blower is protected.”

I have no idea what recourse that democratic government has against something like this, but most of the ones that are left involve throwing people into cells until they decide to testify.

Respond to this post on the Esquire Politics Facebook page here.

You Might Also Like