Power Grab - Jason Chaffetz Page 0,59
of that investigation.
The investigation revealed that no classified documents were reviewed at that time, nor was classified information discussed. Nothing the president does in that setting is off-the-record. Every email sent, every word said, and every website visited can be validated. I ultimately went to the White House to receive a classified briefing. Ranking member Cummings chose not to join me, but he did send staff to receive the briefing.
As I recall, it turned out that newly minted President Trump and the Japanese prime minister were looking not at classified information, or even foreign policy information, but at pictures of Prime Minister Abe’s father playing golf decades earlier. Does anyone remember seeing that reported in the media? Probably not. But the allegations themselves and the fact of my opening an investigation were broadly reported, fanning the flames of anti-Trump sentiment for several weeks. When the story turned out to be false, no one was interested in writing about that.
Was it legitimate to ask the question? Sure. But the breathless response and immediate condemnation were all about setting a political narrative—one that turned out to be false. I continued to receive pressure to open investigations into similarly unsupported allegations.
None of those early allegations against the president produced a shred of real evidence. There was a lot of speculation. But I wasn’t willing to open investigations based on nothing more than speculation. I had not done so against Democrats and would not do so against Republicans, either. All of that has changed now that Democrats run oversight.
We never did open an investigation into the Russia collusion allegations, because at that time there was no evidence on which to base such an action, only speculation and the wild conjecture that he must have done something illegal or he wouldn’t have won.
Breaching the Constitutional Limits of Oversight
As political opposition research activities morph into full-scale congressional investigations across multiple committees, it’s fair to wonder what the actual constitutional limits of oversight are. What will happen if the Democrats breach them?
In truth, congressional oversight authority is broad—as it should be. However, despite the widespread belief in Congress that the oversight role is boundless, the Supreme Court has not agreed. The primary role of Congress is quite clearly to legislate. Over time, the courts have rightly interpreted that role to include an oversight component. But the purpose of congressional oversight is to provide oversight of government expenditures and to inform pending legislation. In that role, Congress is able to obtain documents and testimony from the executive branch specifically for the purpose of informing the lawmaking process.
Back in 1957, the Supreme Court addressed the limits of congressional oversight authority clearly. In response to a subpoena, John Watkins testified and answered questions before the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Watkins was asked whether certain other named individuals were members of the Communist Party.
In refusing to answer, Watkins told the committee, “I do not believe that such questions are relevant to the work of this committee, nor do I believe that this committee has the right to undertake the public exposure of persons because of their past activities.” That answer resulted in Watkins being convicted of contempt of Congress. In the ensuing court case, Watkins v. U.S., the Court addressed the limits of congressional oversight jurisdiction, holding:
The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possible needed statutes. . . .
But, broad as is this power of inquiry, it is not unlimited. There is no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of the Congress. . . .
No inquiry is an end in itself; it must be related to and in furtherance of a legitimate task of Congress.
A subsequent 1959 Supreme Court ruling dealing with that same House Committee on Un-American Activities set broad, but clear parameters for congressional oversight. The Court in Barenblatt v. U.S. ruled:
Broad as it is, the power is not, however, without limitations. Since Congress may only investigate into those areas in which it may potentially legislate or appropriate, it cannot inquire into matters which are within the exclusive province of one of the other branches of the Government. Lacking the judicial power given to the Judiciary, it cannot inquire into matters that are exclusively the concern of the Judiciary. Neither can it supplant the Executive in what exclusively belongs to the Executive.
When you