Rep. Andy Biggs' denial of a pardon request would be more believable – under oath

Every politician is some version of a Shakespearean character. Macbeth. King Lear. Richard III. Iago from Othello. Take your pick.

On any given day Arizona Republican Rep. Andy Biggs displays the peccadilloes of any one, or all, of those guys.

Presently, however, it is not one of Shakespeare’s characters that defines Biggs, but one of his most famous lines. It’s from Hamlet. The title character’s mother, watching an overacting character in a play within the play, says, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

That’s how it is with Biggs.

Hutchinson spoke under oath, Biggs on Twitter

Methinks he doth protest too much about the select committee in the House looking into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and, most recently, about whether he was one of the members of Congress seeking a pardon from former President Donald Trump.

A recent committee presentation showed a video of Cassidy Hutchinson, who served as Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs, answering questions under a subpoena about members of Congress who sought pardons.

She mentions Biggs by name.

Biggs says Hutchinson is “mistaken.”

Or, worse, that her testimony was “deceptively edited.”

Here’s the thing, however. I’ve not seen or read anywhere that Hutchinson has complained about what was shown during the committee’s hearing.

And here’s another difference between Biggs and her.

Hutchinson spoke under oath.

Biggs published his denial on Twitter.

He said, “The unAmerican January 6 Committee continues to pursue me with the false allegation that I sought a presidential pardon. To the extent Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House staffer, believes I requested a presidential pardon, she is mistaken.”

Well, Hutchinson seems pretty certain on the video.

Biggs could set the record straight

Which raises a question or two.

For example, if Biggs didn’t seek a pardon, did someone seek one for him? Either at his direction or not? Did he know if that happened and notify the White House that he wasn’t interested?

Biggs also said, “Like the many selective leaks from this illegally formed Committee, today’s video testimony from Ms. Hutchinson was deceptively edited to make it appear as if I personally asked her for a presidential pardon.”

There’s nothing illegal about the committee. But Hutchinson’s testimony does leave the impression that Biggs asked. And like I said, I don’t recall Hutchinson complaining about the editing.

Finally, Biggs said, “These hearings, without cross-examination or advance disclosure of evidence, have become a Soviet-style show trial; the truth is less important than the outcome. And the media is aiding and abetting the entire disgraceful affair.”

All of those complaints could be resolved if Rep. Biggs (and a number of other Republicans) do one thing:

Testify.

Under oath.

In public.

It's not 'Soviet-style' if he would testify

It’s not a “Soviet-style show trial” if you have an open invitation to participate. And Biggs has one. The committee subpoenaed Biggs (and other members of Congress) but they have refused to testify. Meantime, most of the witnesses who have testified are Republicans with close ties to the former president and his White House.

If Biggs wants to set the record straight he can do so. The committee has a lot of questions for members of Congress who worked to upend the presidential election. We’d all love to hear about that from someone who was proud of that effort and who could explain exactly why in front of a nationally televised audience.

A tweet just isn’t the same as sworn testimony, which should appeal to someone eager to clear his name.

If Biggs would rather rant on social media instead of standing in front of the committee and swearing to tell the truth, then he simply doth protest too much.

That’s what methinks, anyway.

Reach Montini at ed.montini@arizonarepublic.com.

For more opinions content, please subscribe.

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Andy Biggs' pardon denial would be more believable under oath