Tips for Reporters Covering Congressional Oversight

From Experts Who Have Worked Inside Those Investigations

Austin Evers founded American Oversight in 2017, after serving in the State
Department on oversight and transparency issues.

• Congressional oversight is one piece of the broader accountability puzzle.

Congressional investigations work in parallel with investigative journalism
and watchdog actions.

• Congressional oversight is much broader than subpoenas. In many ways, a

subpoena reflects a failure. Congress has many tools at its disposal, some
public some private, to enforce its demands.
• Congressional oversight impacts many individuals beyond the president or
agency heads. Mid-level appointees will find themselves caught in larger
political battles and may (or may not) want to become infamous. This creates
opportunities for Congress to drive wedges within the administration to get
the truth.
• Every oversight investigation has three angles: 1. Investigating to find the
truth about the substance of the investigation; 2. Fighting back against (and
making a public case about) administration obstruction and delay; and 3.
Following unexpected leads (e.g., Clinton emails).
• The oversight landscape in 2019 is much different than it was the last time
the Democrats took over in 2007. More committees have subpoena authority
and oversight subcommittees. Thus, any discussion of oversight that
suggests Congress should pick one or two issues to investigate first misses
the mark; expect every major committee to embark on oversight
investigations simultaneously. It's not just about House Oversight &
Government Reform.
• Congress's authority to investigate is premised on the Executive Branch's
acceptance of that authority (including the Trump DOJ Office of Legal
Counsel in 2017). We do not know what it looks like when an administration
says "no" across the board. Even Nixon acquiesced to investigations
eventually.

Andy Wright is senior fellow and founding editor of “Just Security” and a research
scholar at New York University School of Law. Pertinent to this discussion, he
served in Obama’s White House counsel office and was staff director to the House
Oversight Committee.

• Follow-up is the barometer of a congressional committee's will and skill.

Follow-up is harder to cover than the initial request letter, but it is where
Congress demonstrates its strength to upend the status quo (no documents
 or witnesses) to pry information from an executive branch that benefits from
it. Most delays are more attributable to Congress's lack of follow-up than the
executive's recalcitrance.

• 3rd party discovery will be a major source of information for Democratic

investigators. Smart investigators will be mining troves of information held
by private entities. Banks, accountants, corporations, state business filings,
internet and phone service providers all have highly relevant info to big ticket
investigations, and almost none of the legal or practical tools to resist
congressional subpoenas. What will be interesting is whether President
Trump or the administration try to block third-parties from producing records
under subpoena--a much more vulnerable position than just refusing to
honor a subpoena.

• Hand wringing about Democratic overreach is overblown. The basic political

dynamics are already set before one gavel switches hands: Trump will paint
Pelosi as a caricature bogey-woman and Democrats as obstructionists, and
conservative media will amplify any missteps or rhetorical excesses.
However, that dynamic will be mitigated by a very active Democratic -- and
perhaps Republican -- primary. The Pelosi-Waxman aggressive Bush
administration oversight era of 2007-2008 did not sour Barack Obama
chances.

• Not all executive branch resistance to congressional information demands is

stonewalling. Aside from substance or politics, there is a natural alliance
between reporters and congressional investigators because the media
benefits when Congress pries information from the executive. Separating the
wheat from the chaff in executive objections to information requests is
important, and it will be particularly difficult in the era of Trump bombast
about a "warlike" posture. Therefore, careful attention to prior
administrations' practices versus Trump-specific behavior, as well as the
merits of the objections themselves, are important to quality reporting.

Justin Rood directs the Congressional Oversight Initiative at the Project on

Government Oversight (POGO). He was also a senior investigator on two Senate
committees.

• The oversight process relies on relationships and negotiation more often than
statute and authority. There will be fireworks and butting of heads over
marquee (politically charged) issues, but lower-profile investigations will be a
very different picture. Even as Trump and allies blast Mueller, for instance,
reporting suggests the White House has been very cooperative with Mueller.
 Expect fire and brimstone talking points from the administration regarding
Congressional oversight, but keep an eye on what's really happening.

• While a lot of attention goes to the blockbuster projects, a remarkable

amount of oversight will be done on other topics and get ignored. Don't
ignore those projects. Agencies and programs are in crisis across
government. They affect the finances, health and freedoms of millions of
people. Report on them as issues affecting people's lives, not a middle-school
food fight.

• If the past (18 months) is prologue, the conduct of the minority will be as
important and newsworthy as the priorities and investigations of the
majority. At-all-costs obstructionism isn't the norm. The more that behavior
is treated as normal, the more we facilitate the degradation of our governing
institutions.

• All investigations are not equal, and shouldn't be treated the same. Oversight
can be factual and policy-based; it can be political -- which is a broad term
but here I mean intended to help one party or another win an election; and it
can be both. The best oversight often gets done because it fits both
descriptions. Don't cover crassly political investigations the way you cover a
legitimate inquiry. You don't have to look in the chairman's heart of hearts
and divine his or her intention; look at the issue they're investigating. Is it
legitimate? Look at the request letters and subpoenas; are they reasonable?
If the investigation has merit and its process is sound and reasonable, don't
treat it as a political ploy. Help your readers understand that. And finally, is
the minority on board? At this point members are loathe to take steps that
can be portrayed as betraying their party, but it still happens, and it should
give additional credence to a project.