Regarding "the lawmakers threatened a subpoena “absent meaningful compliance” by the end of last week."(last line)
I don't understand its meaning and I am confused about its structure too.

Could someone explain?


Context>>>>>>>>>>
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff issued a subpoena to the Justice Department on Wednesday for the unredacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, in addition to all of the foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information collected during the 22-month investigation.

The subpoena comes after Schiff (D-Calif.) and his Republican counterpart, Rep. Devin Nunes of California, made a rare joint request for the documents. Schiff said the Justice Department had yet to respond to the committee’s request, prompting him to issue a subpoena.

“The department has repeatedly failed to respond, refused to schedule any testimony, and provided no documents responsive to our legitimate and duly authorized oversight activities,” Schiff said in a statement.

“The department repeatedly pays lip service to the importance of a meaningful accommodation process, but it has only responded to our efforts with silence or outright defiance,” Schiff added. “Today, we have no choice but to issue a subpoena to compel their compliance.”

The committee’s subpoena requires the Justice Department to turn over the documents by May 15.

Schiff and Nunes penned joint letters to Barr — one on March 27 and another on April 25 — demanding the full Mueller report and its supporting materials. In the second letter, the lawmakers threatened a subpoena “absent meaningful compliance” by the end of last week.

@monica8
Absent (non-present) meaningful compliance is that there was no compliance from the side of the DOJ, but rather only responses that cannot be considered a meaningful (Acceptable. Worthwhile) form of compliance.

If we are to rephrase it, it would actually be:

The law makers threatened to issue a subpoena. This subpoena will have its legality and the reason behind issuing it are to be based on the absence of meaningful compliance from the side of the DOJ to earlier requests of the law makers.

Since that is what was considered the important thing according to the writer of the article regarding this subpoena, he named the subpoena “the absent meaningful compliance subpoena”.

The example you mentioned is a bit off because you are double naming (giving a title) to the policy without need.
If it is a policy which is called “save-illegals” then we don’t need to name it (give it a title) unofficially as “deport all illegals”.

This is just a way of giving a name or a title unofficially to define something, just to emphasize the thing one thinks is important about it.

Here is an example:
A is a fat person. He reads about a miracle herb that would make one lose weight without changing their diet or exercising. The following conversation is between him and his friend B who has been trying to convince him for years to lose weight properly by exercising and eating less, but A always tries to find the easy way out, which are mostly scams and won’t work.

A: I finally found the solution! I’ve bought this miracle herb, and it will make me lose weight in no time! This is plan “beach body in 30 days”!

B: More like plan “sit on the couch and believe in things that won’t work” to me! Damn it, when will you ever learn that that kind of stuff is just a scam!