New York Times reporter Nick Confessore jabbed at Trump critics Tuesday over their claims that White House officials bucking subpoenas might herald the end of democracy.

In just two tweets, Confessore pointed out that there is precedent for a showdown between a White House and an oppositional Congress over who does and who doesn’t comply with the inevitable subpoenas.

“Another crazy NYT story here about the White House ignoring a congressional subpoena, like it’s a choice or something,” Confessore tweeted, along with a NYT story about an Obama official refusing to comply with a subpoena.

Another crazy NYT story here about the White House ignoring a congressional subpoena, like it’s a choice or something. https://t.co/vSsCIh84b0 — Nick Confessore (@nickconfessore) May 28, 2019

He followed that with a story about Harriet Miers, White House Counsel to former President George W. Bush, doing the same. “These are staple battles between a White House controlled by one party and a House or Senate controlled by another, not some weird thing Maggie Haberman invented last week,” Confessore added.

These are staple battles between a White House controlled by one party and a House or Senate controlled by another, not some weird thing Maggie Haberman invented last week.https://t.co/5jLVZoaCBT — Nick Confessore (@nickconfessore) May 28, 2019

Confessore’s defense came on the heels of a number of critics who attacked his Maggie Haberman his colleague at the NYT, over her treatment of former White House communications director Hope Hicks.

Haberman headlined a piece on the topic, “Hope Hicks Left the White House. Now She Must Decide Whether to Talk to Congress” and was immediately attacked by critics who thought she had framed the article in a way that treated Hicks with kid gloves.

The Rolling Stone’s Jamil Smith suggested that Hicks was escaping the threat of harsher punishment because she was “white, wealthy, and connected.”

There is nothing for Hope Hicks to “decide.” She got a subpoena from Congress. Were she not white, wealthy, and connected, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. She would appear, or she would face the threat of prison like the rest of us. As she should. https://t.co/giDCcvIxvf — Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) May 26, 2019

Freshman Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez accused Haberman of framing the story as if it were “a Lifetime drama” and using a “glamour shot” of Hicks. (RELATED: Ocasio-Cortez Lashes Out Over NYT’s ‘Glamour’ Shot Of Hope Hicks)

What gets me is news breaks that this woman is weighing committing a crime before Congress &it’s getting framed by the NYT as some Lifetime drama called “Hope’s Choice.” This is a fmr admin official considering participating in a coverup led by the President. Treat her equally. https://t.co/XcNbSuU4QB — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) May 26, 2019

Yup. Where’s the “no angel” take now? In the immediate aftermath of shootings, media routinely post menacing photos of people-of-color victims + dredge up any questionable thing they’d ever done. But when Hope Hicks considers not complying w a subpoena, it’s glamour shot time. https://t.co/ACnvXlKF7Q — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) May 26, 2019

Soledad O’Brien offered a similar critique of the story’s framing and photo.

This is a good example of bias in the @nytimes: a picture of a person who is considering not complying with a subpoena is basically a glam shot, and it’s framed as a thoughtful, perfectly equal choice. https://t.co/qRHT31AsMg — Soledad O’Brien (@soledadobrien) May 26, 2019

Veteran newsman Dan Rather did the same.

Reporting on whether one should comply with a Congressional subpoena should not be framed like a Hamlet soliloquy. The question “to testify or not to testify” is answered by the fact that it’s a Congressional subpoena. — Dan Rather (@DanRather) May 26, 2019

Hicks has given no indication whether or not she intends to appear before Congress.

Follow Virginia on Twitter