Former Trump administration functionary Hope Hicks has been subpoenaed to appear before the House Judiciary Committee. Should she show up or should she flout the law and blow them off? It is admittedly a difficult question to answer, but fortunately the New York Times is on the case. They evidently secured her cooperation for the article, considering that they brought her in to do a photo shoot with Tom Brenner. I think the picture came out quite nicely, don’t you? It would make a nice album cover for some over-the-hill British new wave band.
Of course, the author of this piece is none other than access-journalist extraordinaire, Maggie Haberman. She displays no sense of self-consciousness or shame with this lede:
One of the best-known but least visible former members of President Trump’s White House staff is facing an existential question: whether to comply with a congressional subpoena in the coming weeks.
The aide, the former communications director Hope Hicks, who left the White House with an enduring mystique that inspired countless news media profiles, is now a private citizen living in California. One of the president’s original campaign aides, she went on to become one of his closest advisers while managing to maintain a personal relationship with him, his daughter Ivanka and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
You see, Hope Hicks is very well known but not very visible despite her “enduring mystique” and “countless news media profiles.” Here’s a glamour shot of her so you can see what she looks like! Isn’t she just as pretty as you remember her?
Haberman helpfully explains that Hope Hicks had a front-row seat for some of the president’s most egregious acts and is therefore a firsthand witness to what can properly be characterized as an unrestrained crime spree. Haberman thinks she might agree to honor the subpoena, but only if she can dictate what kinds of questions she is asked: “The likeliest possibility would be a compromise, where she would submit to an interview as long as certain topics are off limits.”
What kinds of topics would be “off limits”? Naturally, Haberman doesn’t even hazard a guess. Instead, she dutifully lists off many of the things that the House Judiciary Committee would want to know. She was there when Trump found out the Robert Mueller had been appointed. She was there when Trump concocted a cover story about the infamous Trump Tower meeting. Are these things that should be off limits? Don’t ask Haberman because she has no opinion.
At no point in this article does Haberman suggest that Hope Hicks has any moral obligation to comply with a congressional subpoena. Instead, she is portrayed as a victim who is torn between her loyalty to the president and the threat of legal consequences if she stonewalls. I think the photographer captured the resulting pensive mood, don’t you?
#/media/File:AlternateRioalbumcover.jpg){kind=link}
Moral obligation? What about her legal obligation? I guess the current Republican definition of a Congressional subpoena is: “a suggestion.”
In fairness to Haberman, she does mention that there is a legal obligation. That’s the whole point of the article. But she doesn’t suggest there is any moral obligation.
Not only that first you need to negotiate the kinds of questions that are acceptable. It’s a bit of a joke.
She wouldn’t be the subject of anything without her physical attributes. Just another repub crook.
Right, which is why so she is so invisible that we need a glamour shot to make her come to life.
She wouldn’t have gotten anywhere near the White House without her attributes, either. She was an assistant of some kind with Ivanka’s clothing brand.
But she’s the ideal Trump woman — looks like that, never disagrees with you, and can’t think for herself. (The whole clan is so shallow and tacky and horrible.)
Imagine that she is considering whether to honor a subpoena? I never thought one of those things was a maybe appearance. What do we need to do to have those little legal things obeyed? Why not put her in jail?
>>I never thought one of those things was a maybe appearance.
despite having the same name as a real court document that a judge can enforce with jail, a congressional “subpoena” is a sternly worded letter without much enforcement mechanism behind it.
Sees so, but I understand if there is a legislative reason behind it , like an impeachment inquiry, it can be enforced with jail. If so that seems to be the way to go. We are either serious about this or why bother since any witness can blow it off.