Facing an existential question

Hope Hicks got a subpoena from the Dems last week. Now she’s apparently racking her brain to figure out whether she will comply or not, as if it were optional. It’s not optional. Ignoring a subpoena is contrary to law.

But the 30-year-old’s decision about whether to comply with the law is “an existential question,” according to a recent article by the New York Times.

Maggie Haberman’s piece — entitled “Hope Hicks Left the White House. Now She Must Decide Whether to Talk to Congress.” — has drawn intense scrutiny and raised questions regarding disparities in law enforcement.

The very title is stupid. (Titles are usually the work of editors, not the reporter.) No, it’s not the case that she “must decide”; what she must do is comply.

Of course there are such things as principled decisions to ignore a law. The black students who sat down at a Woolworth’s lunch counter in Greensboro were breaking a law. No doubt Trump’s criminal gang all have themselves convinced that their crimes are a matter of principle too, but they’re wrong.

It certainly didn’t help that the Times opted to illustrate Haberman’s puff piece with a glam shot of Hicks. (The same thing happened during the flutter of coverage of her when she resigned, too – the news channels all showed endless clips of her in this or that elegant outfit looking very nicely cleaned up.) Yes, she is indeed very pretty, but what does that have to do with anything?

Calling it “an existential question” makes it sound deep and thoughtful and significant, when in fact it’s just a corrupt plan to break the law in order to protect a shameless criminal.

2 Responses to “Facing an existential question”