HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Republicans desert Whitak...

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 03:59 PM

Republicans 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?

55 replies, 5793 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 55 replies Author Time Post
Reply Republicans desert Whitaker and leave him on his own. (Original post)
kentuck Feb 8 OP
fleur-de-lisa Feb 8 #1
Wellstone ruled Feb 8 #2
kentuck Feb 8 #5
Wellstone ruled Feb 8 #7
Honeycombe8 Feb 8 #18
cstanleytech Feb 8 #21
greymattermom Sunday #50
cstanleytech Sunday #53
shanny Feb 8 #30
cstanleytech Feb 9 #38
shanny Feb 9 #39
cstanleytech Feb 9 #44
shanny Feb 9 #48
cstanleytech Feb 9 #49
MurrayDelph Feb 9 #43
Wellstone ruled Feb 9 #45
MurrayDelph Feb 9 #46
Wellstone ruled Feb 9 #47
True Blue American Monday #55
lunatica Feb 8 #3
ZapataViva Feb 8 #15
volstork Feb 8 #22
maddiemom Feb 9 #40
at140 Sunday #51
left-of-center2012 Feb 8 #19
Honeycombe8 Feb 8 #20
lunatica Feb 8 #23
Marthe48 Feb 8 #26
Cha Feb 9 #36
BigmanPigman Feb 8 #4
kentuck Feb 8 #6
BigmanPigman Feb 8 #8
Afromania Feb 8 #9
LiberalFighter Feb 8 #14
ffr Feb 8 #10
kentuck Feb 8 #11
True Blue American Feb 9 #35
at140 Sunday #52
True Blue American Monday #54
lunatica Feb 8 #24
shanny Feb 8 #31
murielm99 Feb 8 #12
msongs Feb 8 #13
pangaia Feb 8 #16
ZapataViva Feb 8 #17
shanny Feb 8 #33
smirkymonkey Feb 8 #25
Duppers Feb 8 #27
kentuck Feb 9 #42
Izzy Blue Feb 8 #28
Ferrets are Cool Feb 8 #32
shanny Feb 8 #34
procon Feb 8 #29
Hortensis Feb 9 #37
Firestorm49 Feb 9 #41

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 04:02 PM

1. Thank you for your summary!

I was mot able to watch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 04:04 PM

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

The Rethugs are counting on the Barr nomination next Friday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wellstone ruled (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 04:08 PM

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

Also?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 04:12 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wellstone ruled (Reply #7)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 06:17 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #18)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 06:29 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #21)

Sun Feb 10, 2019, 01:30 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greymattermom (Reply #50)

Sun Feb 10, 2019, 01:58 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #18)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 07:16 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shanny (Reply #30)

Sat Feb 9, 2019, 07:27 AM

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

the Repugnants far more since they essentially lack any.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #38)

Sat Feb 9, 2019, 09:49 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shanny (Reply #39)

Sat Feb 9, 2019, 11:04 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #44)

Sat Feb 9, 2019, 04:57 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shanny (Reply #48)

Sat Feb 9, 2019, 05:09 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wellstone ruled (Reply #7)

Sat Feb 9, 2019, 10:32 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MurrayDelph (Reply #43)

Sat Feb 9, 2019, 01:56 PM

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wellstone ruled (Reply #45)

Sat Feb 9, 2019, 02:16 PM

46. I hope you are right

but fear shenanigans, and a wishy-washy opponent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MurrayDelph (Reply #46)

Sat Feb 9, 2019, 02:23 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wellstone ruled (Reply #45)

Mon Feb 11, 2019, 04:02 AM

55. My prediction?

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 04:06 PM

3. I think Democratic members asked incisive questions and

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 06:12 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZapataViva (Reply #15)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 06:31 PM

22. It was crystal clear

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZapataViva (Reply #15)

Sat Feb 9, 2019, 09:51 AM

40. Pluses to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZapataViva (Reply #15)

Sun Feb 10, 2019, 01:38 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 06:17 PM

19. Agree 100%

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 06:20 PM

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #20)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 06:35 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #20)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 06:42 PM

26. House of Representatives

were having whitaker's hearings.

And I thought the Dems were terrific.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #3)

Sat Feb 9, 2019, 04:25 AM

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

like that "both sides" in the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 04:07 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigmanPigman (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 04:09 PM

6. He may take Rosenstein's position?

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 04:12 PM

8. Yes, he did, soon too.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 04:12 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 06:06 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 04:22 PM

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

Do it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ffr (Reply #10)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 04:39 PM

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #11)

Sat Feb 9, 2019, 04:04 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue American (Reply #35)

Sun Feb 10, 2019, 01:40 PM

52. Call Whitaker back with a subpoena next time!

And force him to perjure himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to at140 (Reply #52)

Mon Feb 11, 2019, 04:01 AM

54. Right!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ffr (Reply #10)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 06:37 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #24)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 07:21 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 05:02 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #12)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 05:29 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #12)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 06:13 PM

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



Repukes can't handle the truth in that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #12)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 06:16 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #12)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 07:24 PM

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).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 06:38 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 07:11 PM

27. You must have something in mind

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duppers (Reply #27)

Sat Feb 9, 2019, 10:16 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 07:14 PM

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."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Izzy Blue (Reply #28)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 07:21 PM

32. That was SWEET.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Izzy Blue (Reply #28)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 07:25 PM

34. oh

Snap!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 07:15 PM

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

dreaded "both sides" scourge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #29)

Sat Feb 9, 2019, 04:39 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2019, 10:02 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread