There’s been drama around the House Judiciary Committee’s Matt Whitaker hearing, with all sort of procedural and legal back and forth between the committee and the administration and charges and counter-charges between Democrats and Republicans. It’s quite the spectacle, but it’s really how this should work. It isn’t an executive branch agency deciding to investigate the chief executive after he hires its head. It isn’t a subordinate executive branch official being given the responsibility to undertake what is, in effect, an impeachment inquiry. It isn’t, in short, the executive devouring itself. It is another politically accountable branch of government undertaking oversight of the executive, and doing it out in the open. People can decide for themselves who’s being reasonable or not, who’s right on the legal questions, whether there is any corrupt conduct or not—and then make up their minds what, if anything, should be done about it. What a concept.

Something to Consider If you enjoyed this article, we have a proposition for you: Join NRPLUS. Members get all of our content (including the magazine), no paywalls or content meters, an advertising-minimal experience, and unique access to our writers and editors (conference calls, social-media groups, etc.). And importantly, NRPLUS members help keep NR going. Consider it? If you enjoyed this article, and were stimulated by its contents, we have a proposition for you: Join NRPLUS. LEARN MORE