Ben Wittes, writing on the Lawfare Blog on Friday, assessed the connection between the appearance of Trump’s former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, before the House Judiciary Committee, and the whistleblower complaint that apparently involves serious national security concerns about President Trump’s alleged pressure on the government of Ukraine (“The Witness and the Whistleblower: Some Thoughts“).

One suggestion he makes is that to overcome some of the tangled legal issues of privilege and separation of powers, Congress needs to become more proactive by pursuing its own investigative sources rather than simply trying to grill those who have been identified by other executive branch investigations. Reporters are used to having to develop sources of information that official agencies are trying to keep secret. It shouldn’t be a surprise that Wittes, a former reporter and editorial writer, would see the benefit in proceeding more like a reporter.

Here’s the one section of his conclusion that relates to his suggestion. By the way, I do recommend reading the full column.

A second important point is that Congress needs to develop its own witnesses. The current whistleblower fight is instructive. So far, the House Intelligence Committee has gone after the whistleblower’s complaint, and it has sought to hear from the inspector general and the acting DNI. It has not demanded to hear from the witness personally—at least not yet. Before it gets into a lengthy standoff with the executive branch over the fruits of the inspector general’s investigation, replicating its posture with respect to Mueller, Congress should seek the witness testimony directly. Remember that Alexander Butterfield didn’t reveal the Nixon taping system in conversations with the executive branch investigators, but with Congress.

To be sure, the executive branch can try to block this person from testifying or meeting with congressional investigators, and this person may honor the executive’s bar. But executive privilege is ultimately deployable only if the witness, like Lewandowski, is willing to honor it. If the witness agrees to tell the story, the executive branch cannot really stop him or her from doing so—though it can retaliate. As Jim Comey showed, the executive branch can’t ultimately prevent a willing witness from testifying as to matters the president deems confidential—even matters involving the president’s personal communications. Rather than fighting as an initial matter over the inspector general’s investigation, the first step should be to see whether a witness who was brave enough to file this complaint in the first place is willing to tell the truth to Congress.

Litigation pressure has a place in the confrontation between Congress and the White House, but Congress also needs to develop more nimble instruments of pressure. Most important, it needs to stop trying to ride in the slipstream of executive investigations it can’t control. Instead of, or in addition to, trying to force reluctant witnesses to testify, it needs to focus on developing its own relationships with witnesses who actually want to help.