Republicans desert Whitaker and leave him on his own.

[kentuck]

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]

1. Thank you for your summary!

I was mot able to watch.

[Wellstone ruled]

2. Noticed that with in the first half hour..

The Rethugs are counting on the Barr nomination next Friday.

[kentuck]

5. It appears that the Repubs may have tricked a few Dems into supporting Barr?

Also?

[Wellstone ruled]

7. McConnell has already removed the 60 vote rule.

This is a Rethug slam dunk. Oh btw,at the same time 44 new Judges will happen the same time.

[Honeycombe8]

18. He has? Well, then..the Dems can keep that, when they take over the Senate.

[cstanleytech]

21. They wont be able to do much with it though for about 10 years I think as isnt that the length of

term for federal judges?

[greymattermom]

50. What about ethics rules for judges?

Can't any violations of these rules be publicized until the judges in question are impeached or resign?

[cstanleytech]

53. Sure but thats only if they break the rules after they are a judge or they are arrested and

convicted of a major crime that has not passed the statute of limitations.

[shanny]

30. the dems can set what rules they like, when they take over the Senate

they can start by doing away with the filibuster altogether

[cstanleytech]

38. Would make passing things like stricter ethics rules easier which would really torpedo

the Repugnants far more since they essentially lack any.

[shanny]

39. Yes among many other things I think we have to have laws with teeth

about ethical behavior in government. Clearly the Rs at every level and in every branch cannot be trusted.

[cstanleytech]

44. No, passing actually laws is a bad idea because SCOTUS which is Repugnant controlled can and

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]

48. Then let's start with a law that increases the size of the Court*. Problem solved.

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]

49. Thats a different type of law but I do agree we need to increase the number to 3 or 5 seats

[MurrayDelph]

43. If you don't think

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]

45. Mitch McConnell will never be a Minority Floor Leader.

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]

46. I hope you are right

but fear shenanigans, and a wishy-washy opponent.

[Wellstone ruled]

47. Speaker Pelosi will

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]

55. My prediction?

Mitch will retire, but his damage will last a lifetime.

[lunatica]

3. I think Democratic members asked incisive questions and

Demanded answers. How could they have done better? His answers were what failed.

[ZapataViva]

15. I watched most of it

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]

22. It was crystal clear

that he was attempting to do just that: meander through some crap to wind down the clock.

[maddiemom]

40. Pluses to you.

[at140]

51. What's with all the calls for rollcalls?

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]

19. Agree 100%

I don't know how anyone could have watched the hearing and think
the Democrats "could have done better".

[Honeycombe8]

20. I watched the beginning, and a couple of Senators in the beginning were stymied ...

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]

23. After Sheila Jackson slapped him down

Every Democrat on the panel continued the beating. It was relentless. They didn’t 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. Whitaker’s refusal to answer”, or “I’ll 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]

26. House of Representatives

were having whitaker's hearings.

And I thought the Dems were terrific.

[Cha]

36. Thank you for that.. I didn't

like that "both sides" in the OP.

[BigmanPigman]

4. A guest on Nicole Wallace said

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]

6. He may take Rosenstein's position?

Hasn't Rosenstein announced that he was leaving? I thought I read that somewhere?

[BigmanPigman]

8. Yes, he did, soon too.

I hope that doesn't happen but I would not be a bit surprised.

[Afromania]

9. I think he took it back or said he wasn't going until the investigation was over.

[LiberalFighter]

14. I believe when Mueller is done. Maybe I have it wrong.

[ffr]

10. Will Whitaker be held in contempt of congress for his evasiveness. That's my question.

Do it!

[kentuck]

11. They will probably call him back....?

...and give him one more chance to prevent a contempt charge?

[True Blue American]

35. Yes, Nadler said right at the end he would be calling him back.

Whitaker used something on his face and head to cut the oily look.

[at140]

52. Call Whitaker back with a subpoena next time!

And force him to perjure himself.

[True Blue American]

54. Right!

[lunatica]

24. He was sworn in so we'll see.

It is illegal to lie to Congress in a hearing as well as it being illegal to deliberately misinform.

[shanny]

31. so he was under oath?

becoz lying to Congress is a crime regardless, but I imagine lying to Congress under oath is an order of magnitude worse

[murielm99]

12. The repiggies walked out of the hearing?

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]

13. nazis walked out of the reichstag frequently to stymie government action nt

[pangaia]

16. Truth to tell it is now only legitimate when Dems are in charge.

Repukes can't handle the truth in that.

[ZapataViva]

17. I also did not realize that

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]

33. playing to the cheap seats, trying to de-legitimize the proceedings with optics

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]

25. What a joke!

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]

27. You must have something in mind

When you said the Dems could've done better. How so?

[kentuck]

42. Good question!

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]

28. Winner-winner

"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]

32. That was SWEET.

[shanny]

34. oh

Snap!

[procon]

29. Ack... A perfectly good rant got zapped by the

dreaded "both sides" scourge.

[Hortensis]

37. Agree. Just came out of nowhere. Pow!

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]

41. Whitaker's answers were another thorn in the side of the process.

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.