Regarding the Hunter Circus on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Noah Rothman has a great column on the contemptuousness of the president’s contemptible son. Our reporter David Zimmermann has a report that’s worth your time, too. (I wrote an opinion piece on it for Fox News yesterday.)
Noah is right that the Oversight Committee Democrats’ defense of Hunter is frivolous. They claim that since the subpoena demanded Hunter’s appearance for testimony and since he showed up yesterday claiming to be prepared to testify, the contempt is “cured” (meaning, the House should deem the initial failure to comply as rectified by subsequent compliance). But a contempt can conceivably be cured only by compliance with the terms of the directive that has been flouted — in this instance, an Oversight Committee subpoena. I say “conceivably” because belated compliance with a subpoena is a cure only if it would put the investigative body in the same position that it would be in if compliance had been timely. (For instance, if the delay causes investigators to lose access to evidence, then belated compliance is not a cure.)
Comments