Charlie Savage

They can call witnesses and have them give sworn testimony.

Hegseth, obviously.

Admiral Bradley, obviously.

There are things they could ask for as well.

The administration has released, as we know, this sort of 30-second edited surveillance clip that doesn't show the follow-up strikes.

It doesn't show people surviving the first attack.

But you know they've got that video.

In fact, the New York Times has filed a lawsuit for the unedited video of that strike.

Congress also could demand that video.

A retired, very senior JAG told me that one of the questions that could maybe be parsed through actual evidence

is what kind of missile was it that was fired at the boat the second time?

Because they can be configured to be anti-personnel or anti-material.

Anti-personnel missile can produce a lot of shrapnel to try to kill people, as opposed to one that's trying to produce a big hole in a large object.

So which kind did they shoot?

And did they have the other kind available?

These are all the kinds of sort of evidentiary questions that if you're really drilling down into the nuances of these nitty-gritty things of what was said and done at each moment, what was the intent, what was the understanding, Congress could demand and then see if the Trump administration is willing to turn over.

So obviously Congress itself is a political body and it performs oversight and it appropriates funds and it passes laws.

It doesn't prosecute people.

It's not its job to bring charges against anyone.

It could cut off funds to the military for further boat strikes if it had the political will, meaning majority votes to do that and future appropriations bills.