No, I’m saying introducing an act stating: We’re going to share all information related to this incident (but not really) by the Senate, in the hopes others will divulge intelligence and show their hand while not showing their own seems about par for the course.
If there’s no indictable offense in the legislation for violating it then there’s no chance for prosecution because no criminal charge can be laid. If so, then there would have to be consideration of what statutory implement has been violated by the FIO in not divulging what information it has, or if one is going to judicial route, what potential case might be used to subpoena FIO officials or documents related to the Kynoke Inquest in a vicarious fashion.
I suppose a Senate oversight or investigatory panel could be convened under the pretext of budgetary constraints (We’ll only release Federal funds to the FIO if they release documents related to the Hope For All Act in the interests of compliance). Then again, that depends on representatives in the Senate desiring to form such a committee. It’s not the first time the Senate has turned a blind eye to the activities of the FIO in the interests of national security.
Oh right, there’s also the special trick the FIO could use if it was part of the bill. If the designated agency to oversee any violations of the Hope For All Act is the FIO itself then it could use the old, “We’ve opened an investigation to see if any violations occurred and found that we have done nothing wrong and have no information available,” loophole.