General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRepublicans desert Whitaker and leave him on his own.
Republicans, in an attempt to discredit the Mueller investigation, walked out of the Judiciary Committee hearing, with Acting AG Matthew Whitaker.
Whitaker got off to a very shaky start and only slightly improved as the hearing proceeded.
He made a rookie mistake of telling the Chairman, Gerald Nadler, that his "five minutes were up", not realizing that the Chairman can take as long as he likes, and attempted to make light humor of a question by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of TX.
She quickly reminded him that it was not a laughing matter.
Mr. Attorney General, we are not joking here and your humor is not acceptable, she said. You are here because we have a constitutional duty to ask questions and the Congress has a right to establish government rules.
That seemed to change the tone of the hearing, in my opinion.
Mr Whitaker seemed to become more cautious and serious with his answers after that interaction.
That was when the Republicans jumped ship. They were like rats deserting a ship. They scurried to more safe environments.
If the truth be known, both sides could probably have done a lot better?
fleur-de-lisa
(14,629 posts)I was mot able to watch.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)The Rethugs are counting on the Barr nomination next Friday.
kentuck
(111,111 posts)Also?
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)This is a Rethug slam dunk. Oh btw,at the same time 44 new Judges will happen the same time.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)cstanleytech
(26,361 posts)term for federal judges?
greymattermom
(5,754 posts)Can't any violations of these rules be publicized until the judges in question are impeached or resign?
cstanleytech
(26,361 posts)convicted of a major crime that has not passed the statute of limitations.
shanny
(6,709 posts)they can start by doing away with the filibuster altogether
cstanleytech
(26,361 posts)the Repugnants far more since they essentially lack any.
shanny
(6,709 posts)about ethical behavior in government. Clearly the Rs at every level and in every branch cannot be trusted.
cstanleytech
(26,361 posts)probably would kick it out however the House and Senate are allowed to have their own rules and SCOTUS cannot generally do shit about those.
Now seeing as we hold the House we should enact draconian ethics rules over a number of things right now because if the Repugnants step out of line then can be in deep shit and that can then also impact them later on if they should try to run for another office like the Senate or a governorship.
Granted some of our people will be caught in it to but I suspect more Repugnants than Democrats will so in the long term it will help us because what we are fighting is a war of attrition now and we need to wear them down.
Then we will see a gradual change as more and more unethical Repugnants are forced out of office across the country.
shanny
(6,709 posts)And no, don't tell me court packing doesn't work. FDR threatened it, got blowback and didn't follow through BUT 1) these times are not those times and b) he didn't need to because the Court "suddenly" stopped finding all of his programs unconstitutional. Just a coincidence I'm sure.
and btw draconian rules for the House don't get "enacted" except in the beginning of the term...which has passed
also too: we are out of time for gradual change and in any case no laws that regulate this crap will pass until we hold both Houses and the WH
*2021 is the earliest that can happen
cstanleytech
(26,361 posts)MurrayDelph
(5,305 posts)the first thing McConnell will do when he becomes minority leader will be to denounce the Democrat Democrats for not reinstating the norms he blew up, you haven't been paying attention.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)This is going to be his last Power Grab and then he goes Lame Duck. Speaker Pelosi is already clearing the Decks. Remember,she control's the power of the Purse. Game Set Match!
MurrayDelph
(5,305 posts)but fear shenanigans, and a wishy-washy opponent.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)determine the next Dem Presidential Candidate. Doubt me,look at whom she has selected for critical Committee assignments and look at her demographics she has chosen.
The day of the Seniority Playbook in the Democratic Party is being rewritten in real time. Notice also,the DC Pundit Crowd(talking Heads) are doing their best to drive the next Democratic Presidential Candidate to be a Third Way choice. And the Speaker seems to be having none of it.
True Blue American
(17,996 posts)Mitch will retire, but his damage will last a lifetime.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Demanded answers. How could they have done better? His answers were what failed.
ZapataViva
(60 posts)and I agree with you. I thought they did a good job of not letting him carry on with long bs answers just to eat the clock.
volstork
(5,403 posts)that he was attempting to do just that: meander through some crap to wind down the clock.
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)at140
(6,110 posts)Many Rethugs had walked out and were outnumbered by Dems 3:1 in the hearing room.
It was simply a filibuster tactic.
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)I don't know how anyone could have watched the hearing and think
the Democrats "could have done better".
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)A couple of the Dems in the beginning weren't prepared for Whitaker's wall against answering. They stuttered, seemed confused, didn't know how to respond right away. I don't know who those Senators were. Nothing terrible. But it was a shaky start that gave Whitaker a false sense of confidence.
When I watched a bit later, those Senators were doing much better. Whitaker was doing the same thing...acting like a clown, trying to waste time. He had apparently been told to stall, stall, stall. He refused to answer every question that I saw, but he didn't refuse until eating a couple of minutes with nonsensical talk.
Sheila Jackson pegged him right and got his attention. Way to go, Ms. Jackson!
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Every Democrat on the panel continued the beating. It was relentless. They didnt allow him to give drawn out non answers. They asked yes or no questions and insisted on yes or no answers and they made sure to say, May the record show Mr. Whitakers refusal to answer, or Ill take your answer as a yes or when needed as a no.
It was a non-stop beating. There was no way to interpret it as Whitaker winning.
Marthe48
(17,129 posts)were having whitaker's hearings.
And I thought the Dems were terrific.
Cha
(298,077 posts)like that "both sides" in the OP.
BigmanPigman
(51,672 posts)you could tell he was auditioning for a new position in the tRump organization. He also said that he has interviewed terrorists who were more cooperative than this ass was today. Also, some of what he said wasn't credible, especially the conversations he had with the fucking moron.
kentuck
(111,111 posts)Hasn't Rosenstein announced that he was leaving? I thought I read that somewhere?
BigmanPigman
(51,672 posts)I hope that doesn't happen but I would not be a bit surprised.
Afromania
(2,771 posts)LiberalFighter
(51,388 posts)ffr
(22,681 posts)Do it!
kentuck
(111,111 posts)...and give him one more chance to prevent a contempt charge?
True Blue American
(17,996 posts)Whitaker used something on his face and head to cut the oily look.
at140
(6,110 posts)And force him to perjure himself.
True Blue American
(17,996 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)It is illegal to lie to Congress in a hearing as well as it being illegal to deliberately misinform.
shanny
(6,709 posts)becoz lying to Congress is a crime regardless, but I imagine lying to Congress under oath is an order of magnitude worse
murielm99
(30,785 posts)I did not realize that.
Who the hell do they think they are? The House is a legitimate branch of government, with its own power. Balance of powers, checks and balances, muthafuckers.
msongs
(67,502 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)Repukes can't handle the truth in that.
ZapataViva
(60 posts)I caught the hearing some 40-50 minutes into it and didn't realize the Gopers had scattered like rats. I did notice Democrats going back-to-back-to-back several times and wondered about that. But I don't mind the rats abandoning the ship--it gave them few opportunities to ask BS, subject-changing, questions.
shanny
(6,709 posts)it's all they've got...unfortunately the dead-enders will continue to buy it anyway (even dimson booosh still had 25ish% support when he left office, so did that prick Nixon).
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)The republican party makes a mockery of our institutions, our government, and the dedicated individuals who are committed to justice. They are tearing this country apart.
Duppers
(28,134 posts)When you said the Dems could've done better. How so?
kentuck
(111,111 posts)I intentionally posted this without reading any other opinions on the hearing. I watched it closely and tried to glean what I could from it. Most agreed that Whitaker was an asshole and was not answering the questions.
However, I think we tend to be somewhat biased in our views and believe that Democrats can do no wrong? In my opinion, the Republicans wanted the Democrats to come across as radical, shrieking maniacs. From their perspective, I think they probably got their wish in a couple of instances?
In my opinion, Whitaker deserved all the criticism he received yesterday but Democrats need to be aware of public opinion and perceptions. No need to fall into unnecessary traps. I was not trying to be "balanced" as some suggested. I was attempting to warn of future pitfalls in other hearings.
Izzy Blue
(282 posts)"We're all trying to figure out: Who are you, where did you come from and how the heck did you become the head of the Department of Justice," said Rep. Hakeem Jeffries. When Whitaker tried to respond, the New York Democrat interrupted, "Mr. Whitaker, that was a statement, not a question. I assume you know the difference."
Ferrets are Cool
(21,117 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)dreaded "both sides" scourge.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)But that was my fault for not noting who was posting before reading. Was there a need to add some "balance." Whatever, I agreed with what came before.
Firestorm49
(4,041 posts)1 If someone is asked to come to a hearing, with or without a subpoena, they should answer the questions asked of them, since in most cases, they have sworn an allegiance to the country when assuming the duties of their office.
2. If they refuse to answer direct questions, they should be held in contempt.