Sen. Rand Paul is quoted on the front page of the Washington Post [here] this morning:
“Look, no Republicans were for the inquiry to begin with so why would be under any sort of obligation to feel like we need to complete the work that we never even agreed should’ve been begun in the first place?”
What a weird principle he’s working with! “I didn’t agree that you should have undertaken that inquiry, so regardless of what you turned up I have no obligation to see that it reaches a fair result”?
How about this for an answer: Because the country will be well-served (what a concept!) if and when we all know, whichever way it turns out, whether our president used the power of his office to exchange financial aid for assistance in an upcoming political campaign? Or: Because whether or not you agreed that the inquiry should have been begun in the first place, it has turned up evidence that is at the very least consistent with a very troubling narrative involving presidential misconduct, and some of us, at least, want to find out if that is actually what happened? Or: Because this is not a game of “Who’s Better: The House or the Senate,” and “Nyah, nyah nyah nyah nyah” is not an appropriate reaction to a serious constitutional crisis.
Founded in 1968, Reason is the magazine of free minds and free markets. We produce hard-hitting independent journalism on civil liberties, politics, technology, culture, policy, and commerce. Reason exists outside of the left/right echo chamber. Our goal is to deliver fresh, unbiased information and insights to our readers, viewers, and listeners every day. Visit https://reason.com