House Panel Moves Forward with Contempt Resolution Against Blinken Over Testimony

Washington — In a significant development, the Republican majority of the House Foreign Affairs Committee decided to recommend that Secretary of State Antony Blinken face contempt of Congress charges. This decision stems from ongoing tensions regarding his testimony relating to the tumultuous U.S. exit from Afghanistan.

The vote, which saw a split of 26 to 25 along party lines, has effectively set the stage for the full House to debate the resolution. This action signifies yet another formal censure aimed at a prominent official within the Biden administration.

However, before any formal charges may be pursued, the entire House must cast a vote to forward the matter to the Justice Department for prosecution. Experts view this unlikely as it seems improbable the current administration would take such measures.

A spokesperson from the State Department, Matthew Miller, criticized the recent vote, labeling it as “a naked political exercise masquerading as oversight.” Miller suggested that the actions of the majority seek merely to advance partisan interests rather than pursue genuine inquiry into issues that have already been satisfactorily addressed.

Earlier in the day, committee chairman Representative Michael McCaul began a hearing with the intention of having Secretary Blinken present to provide insights on the Afghanistan withdrawal. Sadly, he had to adjourn the session when it was revealed that Blinken was not available to testify. McCaul proceeded to outline plans to move forward with contempt proceedings against Blinken.

McCaul laid the blame squarely on Blinken, accusing him of evading accountability. He stated, “Blinken brought this upon himself,” emphasizing the perceived lack of transparency from the Secretary.

In contrast, Representative Gregory Meeks, the leading Democrat on the committee, expressed concern about the rushed nature of the vote, seeking to preserve the gravity associated with Congress’s authority to hold officials accountable. He dismissed the proceedings as “political theater,” asserting that there was no substantive obstruction at play.

Earlier this month, McCaul had issued a subpoena for Blinken’s testimony, threatening contempt charges if he failed to appear before the committee for a planned session on September 19. The committee underscored the importance of Blinken’s testimony as it considers potential legislation addressing the withdrawal’s repercussions.

The State Department has asserted that it proposed alternative dates for him to testify, citing crucial diplomacy efforts regarding the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. They even suggested Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell could fill in if necessary, indicating a willingness to cooperate.

In response to McCaul’s actions, Miller reiterated the complexity of the situation and pointed out that Blinken had already participated in numerous hearings and provided ample testimony on Afghanistan matters during his tenure.

The tensions escalated when McCaul delayed the committee’s session by five days but subsequently issued another subpoena for Blinken to appear. While currently in the U.S., Blinken is attending the United Nations General Assembly and participating in high-profile discussions with global leaders.

With Congress set to recess soon, the timeline for Blinken’s testimony becomes even more limited. Throughout the meeting, tensions grew as McCaul accused State Department representatives of misrepresenting the reasons for Blinken’s unavailability.

Several committee members echoed sentiments that the majority’s actions were ill-timed and ill-advised, especially during ongoing sensitive international negotiations led by the administration. Representative Gerry Connolly labeled the actions as “a real shameful moment.”

The backdrop to these proceedings is a detailed report released by the committee’s Republican members investigating the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. The report draws sharp criticism of President Biden’s administration, particularly around the handling of the evacuation and the decision-making leading up to it.

Thirteen service members lost their lives in the suicide bombing in Kabul during the final phases of the withdrawal. McCaul remarked on the tragedy, stating, “This was one of the deadliest days in Afghanistan. It could have been prevented if the State Department did its job by law and executed the plan of evacuation.”

The committee undertook comprehensive investigations, conducting multiple interviews with officials and reviewing vast amounts of documentation. Notably, Blinken himself did not provide testimony during these investigations.

In defense of the administration’s actions, Democratic members of the committee presented a competing report that addressed the challenges during the withdrawal and stressed that the majority conveniently overlooked critical context involving the previous administration’s actions.

Past negotiations led by the Trump administration had set conditions for the withdrawal. A report later released by the State Department acknowledged deficiencies in planning from both administrations regarding the Afghanistan exit.