Rep. Elijah E. Cummings’s (D-Md.) March 20 Wednesday Opinion essay, “The obstructionist in chief,” laid out in compelling detail the intransigence of the Trump administration to turn over documents or make officials available for testimony to his committee. But the essay fizzled out at the end by not explaining just what Mr. Cummings was going to do about the situation. “If our committee must resort to issuing subpoenas. . . . ” What if the administration ignores the subpoenas? The congressman should lay out the probable scenario resulting from an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object.
Bob Lane, Palmyra
House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) complained that the White House is not fully complying with his information requests. The chairman’s grievances amount to crocodile tears. In three months, Mr. Cummings’s investigations have been partisan inquiries where conclusions are in search of facts. This “oversight” does not generate public trust or promote true accountability.
The Trump administration is constructively engaging with Mr. Cummings on his oversight. For example, the Commerce Department produced nearly 10,000 pages of documents, and Secretary Wilbur Ross voluntarily testified for more than six hours. Mr. Cummings subpoenaed three agencies that were cooperating voluntarily. Mr. Cummings accused two attorneys for President Trump of making false statements without speaking to them.
Rather than conducting the fair oversight he promised, Mr. Cummings is advancing partisan interests. As his first announced witness, Mr. Cummings invited Michael Cohen, the president’s disgraced personal attorney and a convicted liar, not for any legislative purpose but simply to attack the president.
If there are complaints to be made about Mr. Cummings’s investigations, they should be coming from the targets of the requests, not from the requester.
Jim Jordan, Washington
The writer, who represents Ohio in the House, is the ranking Republican on the Oversight and Reform Committee.