House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler on Tuesday subpoenaed former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks and White House Chief-of-Staff Annie Donaldson to testify before his Committee.
The New York Times wrote a piece about Hicks and whether or not she'd comply with the congressional subpoena before her.
Hope Hicks, 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 https://t.co/8NXpfQvxQL pic.twitter.com/L7aWVMsIdq— NYT Politics (@nytpolitics) May 24, 2019
Naturally, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) did what she always did: spin the story.
Apparently The Times piece wasn't substantial for AOC. She said the newspaper framed the story as a "Lifetime drama called 'Hope's Choice'" because she's weighing her options.
What gets me is news breaks that this woman is weighing committing a crime before Congress &it’s getting framed by the NYT as some Lifetime drama called “Hope’s Choice.”— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) May 26, 2019
This is a fmr admin official considering participating in a coverup led by the President.
Treat her equally. https://t.co/XcNbSuU4QB
She seems to think the picture that The Times chose treats her "less equally" because it's a "glamour shot." And it's a theme liberals ran with.
This is a good example of bias in the @nytimes: a picture of a person who is considering not complying with a subpoena is basically a glam shot, and it’s framed as a thoughtful, perfectly equal choice. https://t.co/qRHT31AsMg— Soledad O'Brien (@soledadobrien) May 26, 2019
Oh ha. Didn’t even realize who wrote it. Imagine having people write about your decision to answer a subpoena as an existential dilemma. The way these journalists treat the potential sources for their next book is... not surprising.— Soledad O'Brien (@soledadobrien) May 26, 2019
AOC agreed with former CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien's analysis of the situation, saying Hicks was being put on a pedestal.
Yup. Where’s the “no angel” take now?— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) May 26, 2019
In the immediate aftermath of shootings, media routinely post menacing photos of people-of-color victims + dredge up any questionable thing they’d ever done.
But when Hope Hicks considers not complying w a subpoena, it’s glamour shot time. https://t.co/ACnvXlKF7Q
The talking points seemed to be the same across the board: liberals are assuming Hicks won't comply with the subpoena because other current and former members of the Trump administration – including Attorney General William Barr and former White House Counsel Don McGahn – didn't.
i think the idea of 'existential' is not that if she complies she will cease to exist but that if she complies she will cease to be hope hicks https://t.co/XTLMna8Tip— elizabeth bruenig (@ebruenig) May 26, 2019
There is nothing for Hope Hicks to “decide.” She got a subpoena from Congress. Were she not white, wealthy, and connected, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. She would appear, or she would face the threat of prison like the rest of us. As she should. https://t.co/giDCcvIxvf— Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) May 26, 2019
Hope Hicks had to have known who she was working for and what the work they were doing was affecting the world. These are people we should treat with every bit of disdain. By testifying, Hicks may actually have her first opportunity to perform something akin to a public service.— Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) May 26, 2019
That the Paper of Record would profile Hicks as if she has a legitimate choice as to whether or not she should comply with a Congressional subpoena is a testament to the degree to which norms have shifted to accommodate Trumpian criminality. I mean, what are we even asking here?— Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) May 26, 2019
I’ll add this framing of it as an “existential question” is infuriating. People who face those in America are transgender folks who see their very selves being legislated out of existence, or abortion patients in states who would imprison or kill them for it, because “pro-life.”— Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) May 26, 2019
Black folks here have faced existential questions, quite literally, for 400 years. Indigenous people for even longer. I don’t want to belabor this, but we must think more critically—especially when evaluating President Trump and his collaborators. We are writing in permanent ink.— Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) May 26, 2019
There's this whole notion that she can assert privilege.
If you think Hope Hicks choosing whether or not to obey the law is an "existential question", then boy do I have some news for you about the climate crisis https://t.co/k8q39t89kv— Kate Aronoff (@KateAronoff) May 26, 2019
And be on the right side of history.
If Hope Hicks wants to be on the right side of history she will go to Congress and tell all. If she thinks Trump will be see as anything more than the incompetent and corrupt mess he is, she better take a closer look and talk to a few who are not in the cult! https://t.co/pT1a0TIZbS— John Dean (@JohnWDean) May 26, 2019
Then there are those who think she repeatedly covered for the big orange guy in the White House.
(NOTE) Hope Hicks lied to the country repeatedly on both Russia and obstruction, and subsequently admitted she had done so. She may have a moral code, but it has not yet been demonstrated to the country. So as far as I'm concerned, her considering ignoring a subpoena is on brand.— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) May 26, 2019
(NOTE2) I agree with those who say the New York Times humiliated itself by positioning Hope Hicks as a sympathetic figure and her decision over whether to break the law an "existential" question rather than merely yet another test of basic human decency that she's likely to fail.— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) May 26, 2019
(NOTE3) Certain people, and Hicks is one of them, made the decision to work for a venal, dishonest, and dangerous politician with their eyes wide open about what he was and how he planned to harm the country. It would take a lifetime of repentance for them to re-earn my sympathy.— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) May 26, 2019
Seriously? When will Democrats give it up?
If Hicks decides not to testify, they'll be up in arms. If she testifies and they she doesn't provide them any intel that they're hoping – or convinced – she has, then she'll be someone who's lying for Trump. It's a lose-lose situation, in all honesty.
It's time to move on but Nadler and his crew are just getting started.