There's a moral argument not to use the congressional oversight process as a partisan tool, but to the extent that there's evidence doing so will "come back to bite" the party that does that, this column doesn't make that case.
washingtonpost.com/opinions/democ…
washingtonpost.com/opinions/democ…
Republicans don't regret the absurdly overzealous Benghazi investigations. They led to the discovery of Clinton's email server which literally won them the 2016 presidential election! washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost…
How much time do you think Trey Gowdy spends rending his garments about his committee's partisanship? Jason Chaffetz went from running Oversight to Fox News! 
I'm in favor of congressional investigations based on the public's interest, not partisan interests. But when Republicans acted in favor of the latter, neither the Democrats nor the press was able to successfully punish them.
IF the argument is that Democrats are more likely to criticize their own over potentially partisan elections and are more likely to care if the press criticizes them over it, that's another story, but then the story is about fundamental asymmetry between the parties.
"Even Henry Waxman and the Amazon Washington Post say it's partisan to force the release of the tax returns of the only president in recent history to simultaneously own a vast business empire who is also unwilling to voluntarily release them like all other presidents!"
It’s probably worth keeping in mind that if Democrats run investigations, no matter what they do, the White House is going to portray it as partisan and their congressional and media allies will follow along. There’s no magic way to recreate a bipartisan era here. Not happening.
