The truth will come out!!

Albuquerque NM

Description

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s threat that Republicans “will not forget” if telecommunications companies comply with lawful requests for information from the select committee investigating Jan. 6 should bring immediate scrutiny from ethics and legal authorities. It calls to mind a movie where a gangster walks into a business and says “Gee, nice telecom company you have here. It would be a real shame if something happened to it.” It may also be a sign that the committee is getting close to uncomfortable evidence that the minority leader wants to hide from the American people. The House Ethics Committee is well positioned to probe McCarthy’s behavior. Clause 1 of Rule XXIII of the House Rules requires members to “reflect creditably on the House.” Little can be more discreditable than the minority leader of the House openly threatening companies unless they hide evidence from a legitimate investigation — one that may implicate him and some of his Republican colleagues. The Ethics Committee for example has invoked this provision against members for making statements that impugned the reputation of the House, making false statements in connection with an investigation and accepting gifts from persons with an interest in legislation pending before the House. In this case, McCarthy is going further and coercing something evidently of great value to him: noncooperation. The statement made by McCarthy may also run afoul of federal criminal law. For example, 18 U.S.C. Section 1505 provides that anyone who “obstructs … the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry … by either House, or any committee of either House” is subject to criminal liability. Threatening companies if they cooperate with a legitimate request by a duly authorized House select committee certainly seems to raise issues under that and the other obstruction of justice statutes that also apply to interference with a congressional investigation. Under normal circumstances, a person who made this kind of threat might well find themselves under scrutiny by the Department of Justice. There is a complication here, however. The Constitution’s speech and debate clause provides members of Congress with immunity for “any speech or debate in either House.” It is an open question whether a threat of this kind — one made on McCarthy’s official Twitter account — is covered. That open question just makes the need for an Ethics Committee investigation all the more important. The constitutional issue is part of the assessment that the committee should undertake to decide whether to make a criminal referral, along with looking at whether there might be other evidence of obstruction by McCarthy or his colleagues. We can assume McCarthy was aware of the ethical and legal risks of his behavior, because he attempted to garb his threat with a fig leaf of legality. His statement claimed that the companies’ compliance would be “in violation of federal law.” However, when pressed by the media, his office did not identify a law that would be violated. That is because there is none.