Hearings on Hillary

 

NYPostemailsHearings by the Republican majority on recent scandals have been mostly ineffective. In the IRS hearings, three former or current heads of the IRS were key witnesses. Those of us who stayed up with the Lois Lerner epic became familiar with the disdain exhibited by John Koskinen, the current head of the IRS, when he testified.

What the committee seems to do – I am talking about any investigating committee in recent history — is to get the head of the agency or subject under consideration and grill him or her. What happens is that the committee and the public gets the “ignorance of the chief.” The top people don’t know any details. This is true in two senses. If the witness is hostile, and they always are, then they can use ignorance as a delaying tactic. Even if, mirabile dictu, they are willing, they are still lawyers and administrators who deal with paper and people on a very high level. Details are not their forte.

Now we are, allegedly, going to hear from Hillary. But Gowdy has not laid the predicate for Hillary’s testimony. What should we see before her? Something like this:

1. A technical person, currently working for or retired from the NSA, describing our technical capability in communications (in an overview sense, of course) and the reason for that capability. And then the danger of not using that capability, which was developed over a long time at ruinous expense.

2. A technical person familiar with the entire operations of PC’s and the official State system, back-up protocols and procedures, and the capabilities of hardware and how they can be circumvented.

p0115xzd3. A well-qualified author who can briefly review 2oth- and 21st-century signals espionage. Maybe the Royal Navy breaking the German codes in WWI; maybe the Ultra story in WWII; maybe our breaking into the Japanese naval code resulting in the two battles – Coral Sea and Midway – that turned the war in the Pacific; maybe Venona, where we identified the Communist spy network in the US in the 1940s. I am sure there are more.

BIG4. The issues facing the US during Hillary’s tenure as Secretary of State – Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Benghazi, South China Sea, and countless others that we don’t know about. Have an expert testify what an enemy can glean from hacking into senior level communications – what the United States knows and is interested in; what it sees as important, what we are not interested in, and therefore what secret projects of the enemy are still secret. Etc.

Four testimonies, properly prepped and properly timed to maintain the interest of the public, prior to Hillary walking in and knowing nothing.

 

 

Published in Foreign Policy, General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 13 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Kay of MT Inactive
    Kay of MT
    @KayofMT

    You are deceiving yourself, you know it isn’t going to work that way.

    • #1
  2. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Gowdy is only authorized to investigate Brnghazi, and that is all he’s doing. He can look into the server only so far as it relates to that. His investigation has been behind closed doors because he would rather be able to take a lengthy deposition rather than listen to hid colleagues spend five minutes each asking disjointed questions at a public hearing.

    • #2
  3. Fake John Galt Coolidge
    Fake John Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Congressional hearing are a waste of time and money. Bunch of grand standing and sound bites but nothing ever changes? Why? Best answer I can come up with is those in power have no issues with IRS abuse, VA scandals, Clinton’s email procedures, Benghazi, etc. etc. etc. All the hearings and investigations are nothing more than circuses for the plebs. It is just a distraction to keep the people busy while the powers continue to do what ever they want to do.

    • #3
  4. Nick Stuart Inactive
    Nick Stuart
    @NickStuart

    Hank Rearden: Four testimonies, properly prepped and properly timed to maintain the interest of the public, prior to Hillary walking in and knowing nothing.

    You’re expecting competence from the GOP?

    ROTLFMAO^1000

    If Gowdy even deposes HRC under oath it will be amazing.

    • #4
  5. kelsurprise Member
    kelsurprise
    @kelsurprise

    “Deleter of the Free World” – – I love the Post.

    • #5
  6. GingerMa Inactive
    GingerMa
    @GingerMa

    Revis is back with the Jets?!

    • #6
  7. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    Of course, we all know these hearing are political and just exist to harm Hillary.

    That’s what they’ll say, of course.  Because that’s what our glorious new Speaker said himself.

    • #7
  8. She Member
    She
    @She

    Percival:Gowdy is only authorized to investigate Brnghazi, and that is all he’s doing. He can look into the server only so far as it relates to that. His investigation has been behind closed doors because he would rather be able to take a lengthy deposition rather than listen to hid colleagues spend five minutes each asking disjointed questions at a public hearing.

    If Trey Gowdy can thread the needle to the extent that he can get Hillary’s technical team in front of the committee to testify, then that would be something.  There is the question of whether Hillary’s server, and the way it was secured, considering the type of information that was flowing to-and-fro on it, jeopardized national security just by its nature.

    Although you’re correct that he’s only authorized to investigate Benghazi, there’s already been some back-and-forth between Gowdy’s committee and a couple of other congressional committees and Bryan Pagliano, the guy who set up the server in Hillary’s house.  His lawyers informed the committees that Pagliano would take the Fifth, if he were subpoenaed to testify.

    I agree that it wouldn’t be useful to interview Hillary about the specifics of her server arrangement without her ‘team.’

    • #8
  9. John Paul Inactive
    John Paul
    @JohnPaul

    What Fred Cole said: McCarthy already blundered.

    • #9
  10. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    John Paul:What Fred Cole said: McCarthy already blundered.

    Not just blundered.  He dynamited the whole damn investigation.  And not just Benghazi, on the email thing too.

    Before McCarthy said what he said, you could honestly claim that it was an investigation into government malfeasance.  Democratic claims to the contrary sounded like whining.

    Now that whole thing is gone.  Both investigations.  “It’s all political.  McCarthy said so himself.”  Not only that, but any investigations of President Hillary (which she has a good shot at winning now) will also be viewed through this lens.

    “Blundered” doesn’t even begin to describe it.  Not only did McCarthy hand Hillary the election, but also a Get Out of Jail Free card for the eight years of his presidency.

    • #10
  11. Walker Member
    Walker
    @Walker

    Undoubtedly, McCarthy did an incalculable amount of damage. Not only should he be excoriated by his colleagues, he should publicly apologize to them for attributing to them the basest of motives that he has shown only apply to himself. He should then take himself out of the race for speaker. At the same time, the Dem’s would have made the same accusations with or without McCarthy’s amateurish statement. So, the conservative strategy needs to be one of going on the attack on what really happened in Benghazi, and how the reckless actions of Secretary Clinton could have done tremendous damage to our national security.

    Additionally, I fully agree with Hank’s comments. The snarky and self defeating comments of others to his post are unjustified. These hearings are investigative, yes. But they should also be used to inform the public as to why her actions have created so much of a problem to our foreign policy and national security, not to mention respect for our constitutional system of laws.

    • #11
  12. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    I think what we should really do is make McCarthy speaker. He’s obviously got the intelligence, foresight, and communications skills to do an amazing job.

    No, wait…

    • #12
  13. Mike Silver Member
    Mike Silver
    @Mikescapes

    Good Post! Gowdy already had his bite at the apple. The initial hearing was, except for Clinton’s gaffe about “what’s the difference” or “what does it matter”, the committee was run over by her assertiveness. Hank Reardon is right. Republicans need to be extremely well prepared before they subpeona witnesses. They are not nimble people who can handle a witness on the fly. They tend to be plodding lawyers who don’t really know where their questions are headed. Gowdy reminded me of a first year law student in moot court. And his “aw shucks, I’m just a poor county lawyer” shtick is 1960 Dixie.

    It will happen again if they don’t do their homework. Not only are they poor lawyers, they are not even good at politicizing a Democratic blunder. They see an opening, jump in, not well informed of the facts, and swim in the wrong direction. Others have covered the McCarthy screw-up. But even the new boy in town, Chaffee, is far from a bright light. His commitee failed to insist on showing the underground videos of  Planned Parenthood, before summoning the bitch who ran the show. Without the videos, she danced on their heads. I heard Chaffee cried. Great! Saw him on Fox. Very vague on where and how he planned to lead the House. If he’s the best they can come up with, don’t bet the farm on 2016.

    • #13
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.