"You absolutely will not address the obvious comparison between Navarro/Bannon and the Clinton's"

That's because you want to pretend both are the same. Only one pair was trying to avoid a legal hearing. The other is avoiding a purposeful circus.

Here's a good question to hold you to:

Do you insist Trump testify as well, and will you defend Clinton's refusal if Trump refuses???

" Is it breaking the law to call into question and challenge the outcome of an election?"

No. But it's breaking the law to certify you're the duly elected electors, when you're not. And it's breaking the law if Mike Pence illegally throws out the valid results of the election, or if you try to illegally influence him to overthrow the election. And it's breaking the law if the GA SoS "finds" 11,781 votes which didn't exist. It's also against the law to TELL the GA SoS to find 11,781 votes which don't exist.

NONE of which you've condemned, by the way.

"Is it breaking the law to call into question and challenge the outcome of an election?"

You're equating the garden variety challenges with folks who knew they lost, and didn't care.

BANNON knew they lost, and he championed the J6 insurrection.

Does his water smell the worst??? That's my guess.

"Russia, Russia, Russia"

Another admission you're a partisan hack.

When Marco Rubio admits it, and then you deny it, you prove you're a water carrier. Usually sloshed.

"The Supreme Court has long supported Congress' authority to obtain information needed to carry out its constitutional duties. But weak enforcement tools have made getting that information difficult, especially from the executive branch."

Until Gym Jordan honors his own committee's subpoena, kindly GFY.

It really is a joke, as long as Gym ignores the very subpoenas he issues. Your entire argument...the Republicans' entire argument...is laughable.

"Why don't they deserve the same treatment..."

Until and unless Trump is on the docket, it's a farce.

I wonder about your response the day an FBI agent testifies as to how many Trump entries he was told to scrub.

"Why don't they deserve the same treatment Navarro and Bannon got?"

Bannon and Navarro had both admitted lawbreaking. They were both avoiding a hearing.

Neither Clinton has been charged with lawbreaking. Nor are they public servants.

You see no differences?!?

"The Clintons are ignoring a subpoena. They deserve the exact same treatment Bannon and Navarro received."

Why don't they deserve the same treatment Gym Jordan got?

"Why do you continually ignore that Bannon and Navarro were prosecuted and given prison time for doing exactly what the Clintons just did?"

Because that's not all either Bannon or Navarro did.

Serious question: just how bad does that fetid water smell?

"Don't I wish."

Are you kidding? With Oladoken as the QB?

Indiana could beat the Chiefs at this point.

This would be a good time to remind folks:

If Mike Pence has the courage... the Kansas City Chiefs can still make the playoffs.

"Biden FBI Spied on Eight Republican Senators as Part of Arctic Frost Investigation, Grassley Oversight Reveals"

What a riot. Those were the folks conspiring on the "alternative electors" front. Their complaint is "YOU INVESTIGATED OUR MEANS AND METHODS!"

The FBI didn't SPY, they got valid warrants.

"Are you saying the Clintons deserve an exemption?"

Are you saying the Clintons deserve less delay than one of the co-chairs of the committee?

Gym Jordan was subpoened in December '21. By my count, that means the Clintons have until January 2031...

...that is, if Jordan honors HIS OWN COMMITTEE's subpoena tomorrow.

Hey, how about this law: "No member of Congress shall issue any subpoena from any committee which they are currently ignoring a subpoena."

Who's with me?

"It's called federal income tax."

And it's only applied on taxable income.

For example, how much did Peter Thiel pay in FEDERAL INCOME TAXES on his ~$10 Billion Roth IRA last year?

" Saying that the Clintons should be held to the same standard is carrying water for a scumbag?"

No, I'm saying choosing BANNON and NAVARRO as folks to defend is right on point for you.

You know, the kind of people if I accuse you of "enabling", you'd accuse me of vote shaming.

"What, specifically?"

Oh. I see: doing what one of the current committee chairs has been doing for years.

Got Hypocrisy?

" Navarro and Bannon "

Two MASSIVE pieces of scum.

No surprise you're carrying their fetid water.

" Navarro and Bannon were prosecuted for the exact same thing."

Huh? What, specifically?

"Are you saying the Clintons deserve an exemption?"

Depends. Were Navarro and Bannon prosecuted within the statute of limitations?

"Give the Clinton's the Navarro/Bannon treatment."

So, pardon them if they get convicted?!?

Seriously, Republicans have been trying for decades to convict HRC on anything and everything they could find. They're either the worst investigators, worst prosecutors in history...

...or they're involved in LAWFARE.