Republicans threaten Democrats

The Washington Post writes in an article entitled, In wake of Bannon indictment, Republicans warn of payback: 

Republicans are rallying around former White House adviser Stephen K. Bannon after his indictment on charges of contempt of Congress on Friday, warning that Democrats’ efforts to force Bannon to comply with what they say is an unfair subpoena paves the way for them to do the same if they take back the House in 2022.

Bannon, like former president Donald Trump, has refused to comply with an order from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection to turn over records and testify about his actions leading up to the attack, when a pro-Trump mob stormed the U.S. Capitol trying to stop the certification of President Biden’s electoral college win.

Bannon is expected to turn himself in to law enforcement Monday ahead of a court appearance that afternoon. Democrats and a handful of anti-Trump Republicans argue that the indictment was necessary to enforce subpoenas issued by the Jan. 6 committee to Trump associates who are resisting cooperation and to witnesses summoned by other congressional panels.

Many GOP leaders, however, are seizing on Bannon’s indictment to contend that Democrats are “weaponizing” the Justice Department, warning Democrats that they will go after Biden’s aides for unspecified reasons if they take back the House majority in next year’s midterm elections, as most political analysts expect.  

“For years, Democrats baselessly accused President Trump of ‘weaponizing’ the DOJ. In reality, it is the Left that has been weaponizing the DOJ the ENTIRE TIME — from the false Russia Hoax to the Soviet-style prosecution of political opponents,” Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), the third-ranking House Republican, tweeted Saturday.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) suggested that Republicans would seek payback if the GOP regained control of the House, signaling that in challenging the doctrine of executive privilege, Democrats were making it easier for Republicans to force Biden’s top advisers to testify before a future GOP Congress.  

“Joe Biden has evicerated Executive Privilege,” Jordan wrote on Twitter. “There are a lot of Republicans eager to hear testimony from Ron Klain and Jake Sullivan when we take back the House.” Sullivan is Biden’s national security adviser, and Klain is the White House chief of staff.

Various thoughts come to mind here. In no particular order:

• Maybe Democrats are, to at least some extent, trying to give the DoJ back some of the teeth it used to have, which is a good thing in view of how neutered it was under anti-rule of law Republicans
• Threats to force advisers to testify before congress doesn't seem to amount to much since advisers should talk to Congress and not just operate in secrecy as was the case under our corrupt, mendacious, treasonous ex-president with his corrupt, mendacious, treasonous advisers
• If a politician has done nothing grossly inept or illegal, then they have nothing to fear in testifying before Congress
• Being able to force an adviser, and IMO a president, to honestly communicate with Congress is a force for less corruption and more transparency, both of which are in short supply
• Yes, forcing an adviser or president to testify before Congress can amount to unwarranted harassment, but if no laws were broken that would just be part of the job, and the unreasonably harassed individual should be able to publicly criticize their attackers
• If Republicans get power and start issuing good faith subpoenas to Democratic advisers, there is nothing wrong with it, but if they do it in bad faith, then they are open to criticism for abuse of power and should be harshly sanctioned 
• By making these threats, Republicans make clear that they see the rule of law as subordinate to partisan politics and are thus reasonably seen as generally anti-rule of law, which is anti-democratic and pro-authoritarian
• Based on their behavior over the last couple of decades, it is likely that Republicans will not operate in good faith with this or most anything else, but there is no clear law that prevents this kind of rotten behavior, so this will be the new norm for the foreseeable future 
• If voters tolerate corrupt, mendacious bad faith politics and politicians then that is what the situation has come to for better or worse
• The DoJ under Biden has done a terrible job and anything that reinvigorates DoJ vitality and the rule of law is democratic and good if it is in done in good faith, and authoritarian and bad if done in bad faith
• Courts have ruled that the ex-president cannot claim executive privilege for the kind of information the Democrats are trying to get about the 1/6 insurrection, but at least some House Republicans and the ex-president claim otherwise, which suggests Republican bad faith (later court rulings might change this) 
  
  

Questions: 

1. Are these Republican threats a sign of respect for the even-handed rule of law, or a sign that the rule of law is to be used as a partisan weapon for partisan advantage?

2. How can a person distinguish a good faith House subpoena from one issued in bad faith?