I don’t believe I ever responded to this. We were talking about how I wanted the semblance of bipartisanship by letting the minority of each relevant committee call their own witnesses, and that preventing them from doing so may violate House rules.
House Rule XI, clause 2(j)(1) says the minority of a committee is entitled to call their own witnesses during at least one day of the hearing.
See the text from govinfo.gov, click the PDF link on the left (5.3 MB) and then jump to page 581 (page 586 of the PDF). GovInfo
Alternatively here is what it says:
Calling and questioning of witnesses
(j)(1)Whenever any hearing is conducted by any committee upon any measure or matter, the minority party members on the committee shall be entitled, upon request to the chairman by a majority of them before the completion of such hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon.
[…]
~Max
I watched the Watergate hearings every day. It occurs to me that back then there wasn’t the vast number of professional pundits who do nothing but explain and analyze the news 24/7. Certainly not on TV.
There was the evening news with Walter Cronkite (the most trusted man in America), Huntley & Brinkley. William Buckley had a TV show. You really got most of your news and analysis from two or more daily editions of the newspaper. Big cities had several newspapers. Hard to imagine now. You couldn’t just turn on the TV or radio at any time of the day or night and get the news. TV stations signed off at night.
So if you wanted to know what happened during the hearings, you couldn’t tune into Anderson Cooper or Rachel Maddow (or Fox pundits) every day to tell you. The best thing to do was watch it yourself or read detailed accounts in the newspaper.
Other Dopers who were college-age or older during Watergate (or precocious ), is this how you remember it?
Depending on the date, an inquiry during the Obama administration was possibly before both my time and my Representative’s time. Honestly I can only guess what you are specifically referencing but if you are interested in my opinion, drop a line (or maybe a PM if it’s off-topic). Chances are, I would have preferred the semblance of bipartisanship there, too.
We’re talking about Marco Rubio, and I don’t think he’s said that the inquiry should be shut down. I could be wrong, though. I am certainly for the inquiry - impeachment even, although not conviction yet.
Sorry for the wait, Czarcasm. My answer depends on who decides whether the subpoenas, witnesses, questions, etcetera are relevant. In all likeliness, the answer will be no because I want the minority to be entitled to call their own witnesses and develop their own line of inquiry, not subject to the majority’s veto power (which could be abused).
The irony of the impeachment inquiry is that the closer we get to the truth, the closer we get to the moment of truth, and possible the end of American democracy – possibly forever.
The more we push Trump, McConnell, and the Republicans into the corner, the more the dangerous the minority rule will become, the more brazen it will become. The more it will tout the idea that truly anything goes and anything they can do to justify holding on to power is justified.
And for each outrage that goes unanswered - not by congress but by the voting public - the more confident, the bolder they will become and dismantling what is left of people power.
I predict that something is going to happen tomorrow (or attempt to happen tomorrow, perhaps) with an eye towards derailing news reports and coverage of the impeachment hearings. (Maybe even with an eye to derailing the hearings themselves.) Mass protests and voluble walkouts of the Republican House members? Some wild and off- the- wall pronouncement or activity by Trump that demands coverage? Some tragic news from somewhere around the world, Russia perhaps? Whatever it is, I don’t foresee a calm and orderly news day tomorrow (impeachment hearings notwithstanding). I’d like to be wrong.
That’s pretty much my point; the normal elections process is producing leadership that is anti-democratic. The fact that you are not personally experiencing the consequences of corrosion isn’t what matters; it’s the process of deconstructing democratic norms – emphasis on process, emphasis on time. When most of the optimists here finally wake up and realize “Holy shit, this thing might collapse!”…it will already be too late.
Here’s the takeaway: the question isn’t really if or when we slide into authoritarianism because we’re already there. We’re already an authoritarian state with democratic processes. If you’re an asylum seeker denied the usual process, you’re already living in an authoritarian America, not a democratic one. If you’re a hospital patient getting sued over non-payment of a surprise medical bill with no recourse, you’re already living in an authoritarian America and not a democratic one. If you’re a person of color being stopped and frisked, or a Muslim being denied re-entry on a student visa just because, and you’ve got no recourse, you’re already living in an authoritarian America, not a democratic one.
Most people here who feel good or who feel optimistic or who think I’m nuts for suggesting that the end is near have the luxury of feeling that way because of their circumstances. But just because you’re not the one experiencing the pain - right now - doesn’t mean you won’t join the club later.
I know people look at the US and believe that we’re somehow different from, say, dysfunctional Latin American governments, but with time the comparisons seem more and more apt. See, it’s not that these dysfunctional states ever completely abandon democracy; they have…“democracies”. They have votes. It’s just that, like Iran, like Russia, like Turkey, everyone is suspicious of the outcome. Well guess what: in America in 2019/2020, everyone is suspicious of the outcome.
Most of the Watergate hearings were held during the day. But there were recap news specials each evening with analysts all over the place. The big difference was that the evening shows were usually 30 or 60 minutes, and the commentators got maybe 25% of that time. There weren’t the endless debates over a single sentence and nitpicking that 24-hour news makes possible.
More significantly, the media were massified; there were only a handful of channels. There were a handful of gatekeepers. They reported, and you decided, only there was no “fair and balanced” Fox News at that time. If you wanted the news, you tuned into CBS, ABC, or NBC, in the morning, noon, and night. That was it. What they all told you was what the truth was.
Much, much different now, and I can’t understand how people believe that the Watergate analogy applies now. We’re living in different times now. If people gave a shit about Trump’s behavior, they would never have voted for him in the primaries. They knew he was an ass. They voted for him BECAUSE he was an ass. They voted for Trump because he was an asshole and he admitted it and just told ignorant voters their truth: Yes, I’m a corrupt piece of shit scumbag, but unlike the establishment, I admit I’m a douche. Voters are very easy to manipulate. Far . too . easy.
The end of democracy as we know it is coming. Be prepared. You will just suddenly, one day, realize it. And you will not be happy.
The whistle blower’s identity is already more or less known – that by itself doesn’t change much, but the efforts to out him by those who have committed crimes is significant. It’s significant because if we go through the impeachment process and the public doesn’t push for impeachment convictions in the senate - if we go through one of the most obvious and most compelling reasons for career civil servants to stand up to blatant corruption and abuse of power, and the public shrugs its shoulders and allows the senate to acquit without consequence…**democracy is soooo fucking dead. **
I don’t care if you don’t get it now; you will eventually.
I’m trying to determine the schedule for the hearings and I haven’t found a timetable that lists every session currently scheduled. So here is what I’ve pieced together:
Wednesday, Nov. 13: William Taylor, George Kent
Friday, Nov. 15: Marie Yovanovitch
Tuesday, Nov. 19: Jennifer Williams, Alexander Vindman, Kurt Volker, Tim Morrison
Wednesday, Nov. 20: Gordon Sondland, Laura Cooper, David Hale
Thursday, Nov. 21: Fiona Hill
Is this correct? No sessions on Thursday, Nov. 14 or Monday, Nov. 18? And nothing is currently scheduled after Nov. 21, but more sessions will almost certainly be announced?
Fox News’ Jesse Waters tries a new impeachment defense: “This is about a transcript of a phone call with a country no-one cares about… No-one can find Ukraine on a map.”
So, starts off with two opening statements, forty-five minutes each. First, Adam Schiff, then Devin Nunes. What’s the over/under betting line that Devin Nunca denounces the sham of a travesty and they stage a walk-out?
), is this how you remember it?