Posted on 05/05/2014 2:23:50 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Lot o’ strategizin’ happening today vis-a-vis the committee, and not just on the GOP side. Greg Sargent hears from a source on the Hill that Pelosi and company are trying to decide whether to boycott.
A House Dem leadership aide points out that there is precedent for such a boycott. Back in 2005, House Dem leaders declined to participate in GOP hearings into what went wrong with the Bush administration’s response to the Katrina disaster, arguing that Republicans had set up the committee in a way that ensured it would not conduct a serious probe into what happened.
The House Dem leadership aide notes that Dems are looking at their 2005 response as a possible model on how to respond to the new Benghazi committee, though no decisions have been made.
“There is deep concern in the Caucus that participation in this sham committee, like the 2005 Katrina committee, would serve to legitimize what has and by all signs will continue to be a political operation,” the Dem leadership aide tells me.
Steny Hoyer told Politico today that they haven’t decided what to do yet. I made the case for why boycotting is smart-ish in the last post; if your goal is to delegitimize the proceedings, there’s no clearer way to make that point (especially to your friends in the media, who undoubtedly share your contempt for this) than to skip it entirely. The counterargument is that the average low-information voter watching soundbites of the day’s hearings at 10 p.m. on cable either won’t know or won’t care about the boycott. All he’ll know is that Trey Gowdy is pounding the table and seems utterly convinced that there’s a cover-up, and that the witness he’s grilling seems shifty and nervous. If you’re a Dem, maybe it’s better to have people on the committee pounding the table about what a farce this all is so that the news networks have something for the “counterpoint” part of the soundbite highlight reel.
What Democrats are really trying to do right now, I think, is calculate the odds that there’s something hugely damaging out there that might be uncovered by the committee — in other words, the odds that the GOP’s been right about Benghazi all along. Looks to me like they’re 90 percent sure that this’ll be a nothingburger, but that remaining 10 percent carries a big risk. Namely, if they participate in the committee, spend three weeks screeching that it’s a sham and an insult to the president, and then a smoking gun turns up, they’ll be as humiliated as Obama is. That’s another reason to boycott, to keep their distance not only from a committee that their base finds dubious but to keep their distance from any findings that might truly hurt O. Or would their absence actually backfire by signaling to the public that they didn’t care enough to find the truth? Political actors don’t like uncertainty and Pelosi’s dealing with a lot of uncertainty right now.
Exit question for legal eagles: What would it mean for the White House to not “cooperate” with the committee? I assume that means claiming executive privilege over documents that Gowdy wants, which has worked so far in other contexts to hinder GOP investigations but would look awfully shady in this case, especially with the White House bleating that this is all much ado about nothing. Would they, or could they, refuse to send witnesses too? Even Kerry and Hillary routinely appear/appeared before Congress. It’d look suspicious if the key players suddenly clammed up now.
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
For once, Boehner did the right thing by appointing a select committee. Now, he should double down and state publicly that any attempt to stonewall the committee will result in Obama being held directly accountable through the impeachment process, with the definition of ‘stonewalling’ being the exclusive right of Congressman Gowdy.
Is this satire? I didn’t see John Semmens mentioned. SERIOUSLY?
Oh....RREEEALLLLYYYYY???????
I think it is even bigger than that, although I think that is part of it.
Just look at the lengths to which they have gone to hide the facts and the risks they are taking; the risks being the consequences of the facts becoming known and being liable criminally for lying in order to hide the facts.
As someone posted above, look what happened to Scooter Libby.
And Martha Stewart.
There has to be something big for the dims to be so afraid.
Gowdy is pro amnesty, so, as a congressman he isn’t doing well around here.
As a lawyer, he is fierce. He has talent, and has lost only one case in his career. He is not Issa. If he pisses off Elijah, he’ll finish the job.
He is probably rubbing his hands together, rolling up his sleeves, just for the work and the challenge. And if he’s really smart, he’ll sequester his family.
He will research this and won’t sit around smoking cigars slapping people.
If he’s persuadable, that’ll be a problem.
He won’t turn into a 4-year old, such a common sight, on being insulted by the press, SNL, or those nasty lobbyists from the C of C.
It might be very interesting.
How dare anyone question the mac daddy administration, we have been noting but truthful to the American people.
Two words -- Iran-Contra -- and any threat from that quarter is over and done with.
There is something else-- something far more serious -- driving this cover-up. Personally, I'm thinking it might've been a planned kidnapping of an American Ambassador, morphing into a swap for the Blind Sheikh immediately prior to the election.
But, when the Ambassador turned up dead, "the video did it" became Plan B.
It’s not about the families. They were diplomats, not tourists.
The pundits are constantly swaying this to the four dead americans thing.
THe only reason this won’t go away is because it is an international incident. It is no different from what happened in 1979 in Iran. The numbers are different. That’s it.
I said it on 11 sept 2012, the administration cannot wish this away. our enemies and allies are watching our reaction to this, and it is anti American that the Administration and it’s State Dept don’t care enough about the embassy people to do anything about this.
That’s why it won’t go away.
I could see Holder sending the FBI to arrest senators to prevent them from voting for impeachment.
True.
And that our CIC was part of it, and AWOL.
People hate traitors and cowards and do not respect them. Nor should they.
Remember, Breitbart claimed he had a tape showing 0bama and Ayres plotting the overthrow of the US, from the 1980s. From 0bama’s beginnngs.
I imagine if allowed many may be present in the public testimony.
The Dems will be making it worse if they boycott.
Quite a clusterfark they have going on there...
Most of the people in this country either (a) don’t remember Iran-Contra or (b) weren’t even born then.
Carney should have a Tokyo Rose trial and the sentence.
So maybe we should put together a Super Duper Select Committee? Boy howdy, then they'll have to answer!
/sarcasm off
It would be outright war.
True. But irrelevant.
The important thing about Iran-Contra is that a.) the media and b.) the Republicans know what it means.
Its mere utterance discredits anything and everything a Republican might have to say on the subject, so far as the media is concerned. And the Republicans know it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.