A tipping point for Washington鈥檚 investigative culture?
Many members of Congress were furious. It was 1792, and a military campaign led by General Arthur St. Clair against Native Americans in what is today Ohio had ended in complete disaster. So lawmakers launched the first congressional investigation of US executive branch actions. President George Washington responded with wary cooperation, aware he was setting precedents for presidents to come.
Fast forward 225 years. In the cacophony of modern US politics, it sometimes seems investigations have grown from that beginning into a behemoth that has pushed aside legislating as a political measure of getting things done. Think of the well-known roll-call: Watergate. Iran-Contra. Benghazi. And now Russia.
But the pace of investigations听hasn鈥檛 increased, say experts. The media that cover them are louder. The political combat involved is more intense. They have (surprise!) become more partisan, though sometimes bipartisanship grows听out of partisan beginnings. The process works when the parties come together in the end, as they did in the long political struggle that was Watergate.
All that said, it鈥檚 possible the nation has reached a turning point in regards to Washington investigations. There鈥檚 something about the Russia probes 鈥� anywhere from three to nine, depending on how you count them 鈥� that seems different. The partisanship has been amped up to new levels, on both sides. The accusations 鈥� foreign government interference in US elections 鈥� are extreme, or extremely important. The president, unlike George Washington, does not appear to believe that quiet cooperation helps his cause.
鈥淚 don鈥檛 think we鈥檝e had anything quite like this . . . not in terms of quantity of investigations, absolutely not. But in terms of the tremendous amount of anxiety I see in the country from Republicans and Democrats alike that the government is not functioning properly,鈥� says Raymond Smock, director of the Robert C. Byrd Center for Congressional History and Education and co-editor of the book 鈥淐ongress Investigates.鈥�
Why 鈥榠nvestigation鈥� shouldn鈥檛 be a dirty word
For much of American history, a Washington investigation has meant not a special prosecutor or media stampede but a focus on a particular subject by members of Congress.
Often that involves some action or responsibility or other aspect of life at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, at the White House. But not always: over the centuries lawmakers have convened special inquiries into everything from the sinking of the Titanic to the use of steroids in baseball.
Congressional investigations of the executive branch aren鈥檛 approved, or even mentioned, in the Constitution. But courts have ruled that they鈥檙e implied by the fact that under America鈥檚 founding document lawmakers have 鈥渁ll legislative powers.鈥� Congress needs accurate information of all sorts to be able to properly draw up bills. Ergo, cross-branch investigations are OK, according to the Supreme Court.听
Congressional oversight, including investigations, 鈥渋s how we open up our government and make it visible to the public, so it is an important element of our system,鈥� says Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington.
Thus 鈥渋nvestigation鈥� should not be a dirty word in Washington, Mr. Aftergood adds. Neither should investigations be weapons of political (or personal) warfare.
鈥淭hey are a tool to uncover fact,鈥� he says. 鈥淎nd invoking facts is ideally in everyone鈥檚 interest.鈥�
Darrell Issa (R) of California, former chair of the House of Representatives Government Oversight Committee, argues that Congress should invest more in investigation 鈥� citing a drop-off in probes since he was chair.
鈥淚t takes a long time to build strong oversight teams and it takes very little time for them to lose sort of their mojo,鈥� he says.听鈥淚f it were up to me, I would invest in the neighborhood of a 20 percent increase in Congress鈥檚 budget, all going toward oversight.鈥�
Key investigations
War has frequently been a topic of congressional interest. The St. Clair probe, generally considered by historians the first real US investigation, is a case in point. Lawmakers were interested in why Gen. St. Clair鈥檚 campaign in northwest Ohio had been such a disaster. Of the 1,400 US regulars and militia who set out in pursuit of Native Americans in what was then the nation鈥檚 frontier, some 650 were killed and 250 wounded when adversaries caught them unprepared for battle.
After hearing witnesses and examining government documents, the special congressional committee convened for the probe largely blamed the debacle on poor equipment and fraud by suppliers. The full Congress took no action following this conclusion, however. St. Clair expressed frustration that the report did not fully exonerate his own actions.
Beginning in the Gilded Age of the late 19th 听century, the economy 鈥� and the way it could be manipulated for the benefit of the unscrupulous 鈥� became a common theme.听Congressional probes听looked at everything from rampant corruption in railroad construction to the Teapot Dome oil reserves scandal during the administration of President Warren G. Harding.
This trend perhaps culminated in the Pecora Investigation of 1932-34,听in which former New York deputy district attorney Ferdinand Pecora unearthed the records of many financial firms and ably demonstrated that Wall Street practices had contributed to the onset of the Great Depression.
The Pecora investigation reinforced two powerful lessons for Congress. One was that probes could create individual national stars 鈥� Pecora became famous for his thorough, patient interrogations. Another was that they could lead to important legislation. Pecora contributed to the reorganization of American banking under the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, and the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission the following year.
Often politically motivated 鈥� but not always
Generally speaking, in the modern era most congressional investigations begin when a spark of political motive lands on the tinder of a real problem, says Dr. Smock of the Byrd Center.
That鈥檚 why they are more likely to occur when control of government is divided between Democrats and Republicans, with one party controlling the White House, and the other Congress. Think Iran-Contra, the lengthy probe into the Reagan administration鈥檚 funding of Nicaraguan rebels launched under a Democratic-led Congress in 1987, or the many GOP investigations into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya, during the Obama years.
But that鈥檚 not always the case. Sometimes parties investigate themselves. In early 1941, a then little-known Democratic senator from Missouri named Harry Truman proposed the creation of a select Senate committee to investigate how defense contracts were being awarded, and how well those contractors were performing. This was prudent oversight given the ongoing war in Europe and possible conflict with Japan, Senator Truman argued.
The Senate quickly approved the proposal, with Truman as the committee鈥檚 head. He was given broad powers to look at the financial activities of then-President听Franklin Delano Roosevelt鈥檚 military buildup.
鈥淚t was a Democrat investigating a Democrat, and Roosevelt didn鈥檛 much like that at first,鈥� says Smock.
Then Truman鈥檚 Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program ably pursued a broad agenda. It saved taxpayers billions and prodded the administration to centralize and improve purchasing for the massive war effort.
In the end, FDR liked the investigations so much he chose Truman as his running mate in 1944. Five months after the election Roosevelt passed away, and suddenly the obscure Missourian was the 33rd听 president of the United States.
Strength in bipartisanship
While many investigations may begin in partisanship, they鈥檙e usually more effective if they don鈥檛 end that way. At some point they need to transcend their origins and become bipartisan if they are to achieve their full objectives.
Take Watergate, for example. Democrats controlled both the House and Senate during the Nixon presidency. They drove congressional investigations and votes on Watergate throughout much of 1972 and 1973. Throughout much of this period congressional Republicans, even moderates, argued that the Watergate probes were too aggressive.
Even after Nixon fired special prosecutor Archibald Cox in the听Saturday听Night Massacre of October 1973, many in the GOP were leery of impeachment. A majority of Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee voted against impeachment articles in July 1974.
But the weight of the evidence, particularly the damning White House tapes, was weighing on key GOP Senators. On听August 7, Sen. Barry Goldwater (R) of Arizona and other party leaders visited Nixon in the White House and told him his Republican support was crumbling. Accepting the inevitable, Nixon resigned the next day.
鈥淔or an investigation to be successful, it may start out as partisan, but at some point it has to cross the line to become bipartisan in nature,鈥� says Smock.
How Congress' role has changed
While there鈥檚 always been some partisanship in the process, what is different today is that high-level investigations have been turned into partisan weapons.
The two big parties that govern America are ideologically more homogeneous and further apart than ever. The level of animosity is higher.
To a large extent, congressional investigations today are much less about informing lawmakers so they can write good legislation, and more about controlling or harming the executive branch.
Congress per se is no longer always the central player, as it would have been decades ago. Instead, Capitol Hill has become part of a larger investigative culture, which includes special prosecutors and an aggressive media.
鈥淐ongress ends up being a part of a much larger conversation, which is different from years past,鈥� says Eric Schickler, a political science professor at the University of California at Berkeley and co-author of 鈥淚nvestigating the President: Congressional Check on Presidential Power.鈥�
Just starting such a 鈥渃onversation鈥� can have an effect. According to Professor Schickler鈥檚 research, investigations can systematically lower a chief executive鈥檚 approval rating and weaken their political leverage.
鈥淭here are a lot of examples historically when Congress has used these investigative tools to hold the president accountable,鈥� says Schickler.
Perhaps that is how the investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election will turn out. At this point in the process, we鈥檙e not really sure what their end point will be.
They are just much different than any past situation, according to experts. There isn鈥檛 really a good historical analogy, though some say it has some resonance with Iran-Contra, the winding, complicated, lengthy investigation of the Reagan administration鈥檚 use of arms sales to Iran to fund anti-communist Nicaraguan rebels.
But in this case, a Republican-led Congress is looking at a president of the same party. Congress itself is split, with the House inquiry roiled by fierce partisanship, and the Senate proceeding in a more cooperative manner, at least for now. Behind both, the FBI continues to work.
Meanwhile, the president is openly attempting to delegitimize the process, calling the whole thing a 鈥渨itch hunt鈥� while musing about firing Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller.
鈥淚t鈥檚 a carnival atmosphere that the country has never experienced before,鈥� says Smock.
It鈥檚 not yet clear if the congressional Russia proceedings will morph into a more bipartisan effort.
It鈥檚 important to remember that in terms of President Trump himself, the outcome of the investigation will be as much political as legal. The Constitution鈥檚 description of the grounds for impeachment is sketchy, referring only to 鈥渉igh crimes and misdemeanors.鈥澨� Those are whatever members of the House deem them to be. (The House votes to impeach; the Senate then votes on whether or not to remove an impeached high official from office).
In general, the existence of congressional investigations doesn鈥檛 guarantee there鈥檚 a scandal waiting to be exposed. There may be or there may not be. Voters and lawmakers alike should be sober and realistic about that fact.
But history shows the process itself is valuable.
鈥淭here is going to be abuse in any administration, deliberate abuse. And incompetence, and people have to watch that,鈥� says Louis Fisher, a scholar in residence at the Constitution Project and former separation of powers expert for the Library of Congress. 鈥淚f there is not much oversight, we are going to pay a price.鈥�
Staff writer Francine Kiefer contributed reporting.
