have two realistic paths available to them. (A third—asking federal prosecutors to pursue criminal charges against sitting Trump Cabinet officials, including the head of the Department of Justice—seems exceedingly unlikely.) First, and most conventionally, legislators can ask a court to intervene and order a recalcitrant subpoena recipient to hand over any sought-after materials. This, in itself, is a check and balance: recruiting a third branch of government to settle a dispute between the other two.

In the alternative, Congress can enforce its own contempt findings by ordering the House sergeant-at-arms to arrest an uncooperative witness who, as the Supreme Court put it in a landmark 1935 opinion, "obstruct[s] the performance of the duties of the legislature." Lawmakers haven't invoked this "inherent contempt power" in nearly a century, notes LarryTribe, Feldman's colleague at Harvard Law School, which can make it sound a little outlandish to modern ears. "But you have to realize we are not living in normal times," he says. "In confronting this kind of unrestrained White House occupant, Congress might have to reach back into its toolbox."

The problem with relying on the courts here, notes Feldman, is that exhausting a lengthy appeals process takes time. With the 2020 election only 18 months away, Trump has a powerful incentive to postpone any bombshell revelations about his conduct until after he's finished making his pitch to voters for a second term. For anyone who needs to drag their feet, involving the morass that is the federal court system is a fantastic method of doing it.

Tribe is a