New York Times: Hope Hicks’ decision on whether to comply with subpoena is ‘an existential question’


Former White House communications director Hope Hicks was subpoenaed by House Democrats on Tuesday.

Hicks, who worked for President Donald Trump during his campaign and the first two years of his presidency, is reportedly considering becoming the latest ex-Trump official to defy a subpoena — which is supposed to be illegal.

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.

“Man oh man how it helps to be rich, pretty and white,” tweeted Times contributor Wajahat Ali.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) criticized the tone of the story and the “glamour shot” of Hicks.

“Were she not white, wealthy, and connected, we wouldn’t be having this conversation” said Rolling Stone’s Jamil Smith of Haberman’s article.

At the end of a Twitter thread noting apparent inconsistencies between the Times’ article and special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, Emptywheel’s Marcy Wheeler pointed out that Chelsea Manning recently returned to jail after defying a grand jury subpoena.

The Washington Post’s Elizabeth Bruenig tweeted about the real “existential threat” to Hicks.

CNN’s Julian Zelizer said the Times’ framing indicates “a very serious problem with our democracy.”

The Times’ piece on Hicks — who must provide documents to the House Judiciary Committee by June 4 — doesn’t appear anywhere on Haberman’s active Twitter timeline as of publishing, and has only been promoted once by the newspaper’s primary Twitter account.

Source link


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here