I can see the case for “I thought you said we don’t need to respond to them” and the case for “Sure, I’ll show up and answer your idiotic questions–you got nothin’ anyway.” I think the latter will prevail.
Yes, Option B. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and Dems need to show that they take the rule of law seriously especially after the other party has repeatedly shown that it doesn’t.
There’s nothing improper about the Administration resisting a Congressional subpoena, especially the subpoenas they’re going to get from House Republicans. And it isn’t subpoenas for Administration officials to testify that will be controversial – it will be the litany of overly broad subpoenas for document production in an endless fishing expedition for anything that can be willfully manufactured into some frothing outrage.
And they need to have a policy of responding, “Well, even though that’s the stupidest question I’ve ever heard, here is the answer…”
These “investigations” are going to be all about the soundbites, so let’s give them some.
We all know how Hillary Clinton responded during the BENGHAZI Republican pledge drive, so I would expect similar compliance to serious inquiries.
If a request comes from a place of objective utter bullshit, a refusal to participate unless legally bound would not suprise me.
Q: “Does your laptop have evidence of any international bribes and such?”
A: “Nope, there’s no evidence of a two billion dollar bribe from Saudi Arabia on my laptop.”
Maybe that would generate a different round of subpoenas. Or not.
A: Yes.
Q: And who was the recipient of said bribe?
A: You were.
I want to see the Hunter investigation and see how long it takes them to realize they got nuthin’, and see how long they try to drag it out anyway. It will be delightful if MTG or Boebert actually run investigations, they’re so fucking stupid. I would hope witnesses would bring just a little snark.
They know they have nuthin’ The point is not to show they have something. The point is to have a TV show and a circus, with them in a starring role.
It doesn’t matter if they find nothing on Hunter Biden – the digging is the thing. Both because Republicans will use it to foment a constant sense that this matter is UNDER INVESTIGATION, and they’ll sift through whatever they get to find anything they can blow up into it’s own scandal. Remember, the Monica Lewinski scandal came out of an investigation into Whitewater.
The umpteen Benghazi investigations and the IRS one and the email one etc etc weren’t enough for you? Republicans are perfectly happy to conduct endless substanceless hyperpartisan investigations.
Many years ago, James Randi gave a lecture on how to avoid being mis-quoted during interviews. One point he made was avoiding pauses that could be used to make it look like you’d stopped talking earlier than you did, so that they could change the meaning of your entire quote. In this case, the exchange would show up on Fox News as:
Q: “Does your laptop have evidence of any international bribes and such?”
A: Yes.
What you really need is something like:
Q: “Does your laptop have evidence of any international bribes and such?”
A: Only of Republicans like you accepting bribes.
The problem with the Lewinsky and Benghazi hearings is that the Democrat still tried to treat them as if they were serious investigations, and not the circuses they actually were.
At this point, the Dems need to stop acting like this is a normal Congressional process, and just keep calling it out as the clown show it is, especially when they’re the ones in the hot seat in front of the committee.
I think they’re boxed in. The Dems subpoenaed must show up, or else it will turn into a “Yur a Hypocrite” shitshow. But I also think it serves them better to show up and stir up anger at the idiocy of the committee questioning them about nothing.
Best of all, of course, is not to be subpoenaed in the first place but that ship is pulling out of the dock right now.
I think you’ll find that a lot of these subpoenas will be litigated within an inch of their lives as too broad in scope, fishing expedition, classified information, etc.
Just as a number of Republicans fought their subpoenas in the regular courts for both documents and in-person appearances, Democrats will have the same options to do so.
Just plead the Fifth to every single question.
Can they say, “To quote ex-President Trump, I plead the Fifth”?
Why plead the Fifth when they’ve done nothing wrong? While juries are not allowed to infer criminal conduct based on someone pleading the Fifth, members of the public certainly are.
Because it’s less likely to get a Contempt of Congress charge than “that’s the stupidest question I’ve ever heard in my life”?
Could you just sit there with your lip zipped and refuse to answer any questions? I’m not sure, but I don’t think so. There’s no point in answering honestly. What other option is there?
Can they just respond “The premise of that question is insane, it presumes that somehow…” when appropriate (as it will often be), or “That question is based on misinformation stemming ultimately from the Kremlin, and passed on through loopy internet sources…” etc.?