point, precedents are broken all the time. that s true. imagine that republicans take over the house in november and imagine a republican legislative committee decides now on the precedent built here to subpoena or request interviews with democratic members on their conversations with president biden. these things have a way of metastasizing and becoming very uncomfortable precedents that really i don t think serve the long term interests of the house, no matter who is in control. well, i understand that point about the precedent being set. and again, eiit s the novelty, t just the dismissal of precedent that i talk about here. even if the republicans were to do what you re talking about, hasn t a precedent also now been set by the idea of a sitting member of congress being able to thumb your nose and say, no, i don t have to because i think you might be inviting perjury? couldn t democrats ultimately then say, well, you know what, i see you re delegitimizing a duly
issued subpoena and i raise you with the same behavior you engaged in. isn t that also a risk and doesn t it disserve what congress role is here? again, to the extent that congress wants to inquiry into members behavior for purposes of exercising their constitutional right to impose discipline, they still have that power and they can do that through the ethics committee. there s nothing that stops them from doing that at any point. the precedent here is beyond that, though. this is a legislative committee which now is making noises and sounds not like a legislative committee but like a prosecutor s office. and i quote liz cheney, saying, you know, she wants to invite president trump in. and i have no truck with president trump particularly, but they want to invite president trump in. and if they catch him lying, they ll send him off to the department of justice. but isn t that everyone?
imagine a republican legislative committee decides now on the precedent built here to subpoena or request interviews with democratic members on their conversations with president biden. these things have a way of metastasizing and becoming very uncomfortable precedents that really i don t think serve the long term interests of the house, no matter who is in control. well, i understand that point about the precedent being set. and again, it s the novelty, not just the dismissal of precedent that i talk about here. even if the republicans were to do what you re talking about, hasn t a precedent also now been set by the idea of a sitting member of congress being able to thumb your nose and say, no, i don t have to because i think you might be inviting perjury? couldn t democrats ultimately then say, well, you know what, i see you re delegitimizing a duly issued subpoena and i raise you with the same behavior you engaged in. isn t that also a risk and doesn t it disserve what
congress role is here? well, again, the self-disciplinary process to the extent that congress wants to inquiry into members behavior for purposes of exercising their constitutional right to impose discipline, they still have that power and they can do that through the ethics committee. there s nothing that stops them from doing that at any point. the precedent here is beyond that, though. this is a legislative committee which now is making noises and sounds not like a legislative president trump in. and i have no truck with president trump particularly, but they want to invite president trump in. and if they catch him lying, they ll send him off to the department of justice. but isn t that everyone?