Politics, policy and procedure of Mueller’s upcoming Congressional testimony

FILE - In this May 29, 2019, file photo, special counsel Robert Mueller speaks at the Department of Justice Wednesday, in Washington, about the Russia investigation. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)

Three omnipresent factors dominate everything on Capitol Hill. They’re known as “the three P’s.” Politics, policy and procedure.
Politicians may quibble as to whether the politics are right about an issue. Are members politically in step with their districts or states on a topic? Maybe so. Maybe not. They don’t have to be. And, if a lawmaker strays too far afield from his or her voters, they often pay the price.
Lawmakers wrestle constantly about policy. This is the right approach for defense. No, this is the right policy for defense. No, you’re both wrong. Pols may be at odds over how to handle issues at the border, immigration, health care or even the debt ceiling. Their disposition may be right or flawed. But it doesn’t matter. Lawmakers don’t have to be right on the policies they support or reject.
And then there is procedure.
The politics can be off-kilter. The policy can be iffy. But the procedure cannot be out of alignment. Congressional rules are the Congressional rules. The Constitution is the Constitution. House and Senate precedent is House and Senate precedent. The only one of the three P’s which must be on target is the procedure.
This brings us to next Wednesday’s hearings with Special Counsel Robert Mueller before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. The committees are still negotiating with Mueller’s team about the structure of the hearing. First of all, Mueller was only willing to come under a subpoena. So, the House issued a subpoena. Now, Mueller’s agreed to only submit to two hours of questioning apiece for both panels. But two hours may not be sufficient.
There is a time problem. House Rule XI, Clause 2(J) says that “each committee shall apply the five-minute rule during the questioning of witnesses in a hearing until such time as each member of the committee who so desires has had an opportunity to question in each witness.”
In other words, everyone is required to get five minutes to pose questions.
The Judiciary Committee is comprised of 41 members: 24 Democrats and 17 Republicans. If the committee abides by the House rule, that’s 205 minutes of Q&A alone. Three hours and 25 minutes. And things on Capitol Hill always consume much more time than expected.
Things are a little better for the Intelligence Committee. That panel has 22 members: 13 Democrats and nine Republicans. That would entail 110 minutes or an hour and 50 minutes. Still, there’s not much wiggle room.
Consider this: There are almost always opening statements by the chair, ranking minority member and the witness. Housekeeping consumes a few minutes. At a hearing of this magnitude, there’s a high possibility for disruptions from the audience and “parliamentary inquiries” from members about how the panel is proceeding. Those issues could start to devour the allocations pretty fast.
On the first day of confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh last September, senators wrangled for one hour and 17 minutes over procedure, documents, dilatory tactics and endured various crowd disruptions before Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) could finally read more than 12 words of his opening statement. All of that was even a couple of weeks before anyone heard anything about Kavanaugh’s accuser Christine Blasey Ford.
So what happens if lawmakers don’t get to engage Mueller in questions? Unclear. But the procedure would be off.
No one is quite sure where this is going.
House Judiciary Committee Democrats held a lengthy, closed-door session about the structure of the hearing on Wednesday night. Most lawmakers emerged with few answers. Nearly all replied that things were “in flux.” Reporters staking out the conclave even asked if “in flux” was a unified talking point Democrats agreed to. They denied it.
“These are ongoing discussions,” said Rep. Lou Correa (D-CA) as he headed down a corridor to avoid reporters.
“Is this going to be settled tonight?” asked yours truly.
“It’s ongoing discussions,” replied Correa. “It may not be settled until the day of the hearing.”
Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL) is a freshman member of the Judiciary Committee. She’d likely be one of the last members to question Mueller, due to her lack of seniority. Reporters asked if she’d be allowed to question Mueller.
“We are talking on the format. We haven’t decided yet,” replied Mucarsel-Powell. “We’re still negotiating with Mueller’s team on the timing and how much time we’re going to have.”
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) is one of the most outspoken members on the Democratic side of the aisle. She rarely shies away from a reporter’s question in the hall or a TV camera. But not Wednesday night. Jackson Lee headed straight for the elevator.
“We are preparing for a full hearing with Mr. Mueller,” said Jackson Lee matter-of-factly as she slid into an elevator, the door closing on cue.
And it’s not just Democrats who are perturbed.
“I’m really irritated,” said Judiciary Committee member Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ), who just joined the House 14 months ago. “I don’t even get to question him? This is just plain wrong. I’ve been elected just like anybody elsewhere and for the leadership in the committee to decide that only certain members and certain members even on (the Democratic side) of the aisle – that’s just plain wrong.”
Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL) tried to engage Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) on the issue during a meeting of the panel Thursday morning.
“Could you lay out for us what exactly, with respect to the Muller hearing next week, what exactly you agreed to and why you agreed to it?” asked Roby.
Nadler finally responded after a pregnant and awkward pause.
“I’m not going to comment on that at this hearing. It is beyond the scope of this hearing,” replied Nadler.
The consternation for this hearing anyway, exacerbated by the time constraints. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she wouldn’t infuse herself into the debate in an effort to preserve the institution’s rules or to broker an agreement.
“I wish we had more time. But I’m glad we have the time we have,” said Pelosi. “On distribution of timing in committees, I’ll leave that up to the chairmen.”
So, Mueller is coming next Wednesday. The politics of having Mueller come could be right or wrong. The policy stances of Democrats and Republicans on the Russia probe could be right or wrong.
And if they only stick to two hours for each committee – thwarting many members from asking questions under House rules, the procedure is wrong.

‘Fake’ charges fly as Trump rips social media for bias, dishonesty

It was obvious from the outset that the media didn’t think much of Donald Trump’s social media summit.
Before yesterday’s White House event got under way, a New York Times news story declared: “The guest list has alarmed critics who fear it is bringing together people who disseminate threats, hate speech and actual fake news, and who sometimes have their messages elevated with the velocity of a presidential tweet.”
That was mild compared to the Times’ savvy tech columnist, Kevin Roose, who scoffed at the red-carpet treatment for “right-wing trolls,” calling the guests “a motley grab bag of pro-Trump influencers (who) have taken to Twitter to brag about their invitations.”
But the president, in his morning tweets, didn’t exactly convey that this was some fair-and-balanced look at the problems of Big Tech.
He said the purpose is to examine “the tremendous dishonesty, bias, discrimination and suppression practiced by certain companies. We will not let them get away with it much longer.”
He added: “The Fake News Media will also be there, but for a limited period.”
It’s rather odd, to say the least, to hold a summit and not allow reporters in to draw attention to the issue at hand. The White House later decided to grant access to the press pool, but never released a guest list. So the event was shrouded in a bit of mystery.
So you have the establishment press saying that POTUS is catering to purveyors of fake news, and Trump saying he’s limiting the ability of fake news to cover the summit. The grand fake-off sort of crystallizes the complete lack of trust on both sides.
The president offered what he viewed as high praise, telling his guests that “the crap you think of is unbelievable.”
Trump complained that he was getting less engagement on his tweets, which he found suspicious. “I used to watch it like a rocket ship when I put out a beauty,” he said. “Remember I said somebody was spying on me? That was like a rocket.” (That was his 2017 tweet that Barack Obama had wiretapped him, for which there remains no evidence.)
A prominent attendee was Sebastian Gorka, a White House official until he was pushed out. When Trump moved the show to the Rose Garden, where he talked about the census and citizenship, Gorka walked past the press pool and got into a high-decibel exchange with liberal CNN contributor Brian Karem, with Gorka calling him a “punk.”
Several of the guests began chanting “Gorka!”
The theatrics belie some serious issues. It’s not that Twitter, Facebook and Google—which weren’t invited--don’t deserve a ton of criticism. The companies all lean left. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter’s Jack Dorsey have acknowledged this is a problem. They apply their so-called standards inconsistently, in a number of instances against conservatives, and sometimes have had to apologize for that. And they’ve done a lousy job of policing hate speech, disinformation and Russian propaganda, fueling calls for government regulation.
Still, the White House invited some controversial characters, as the press was all too happy to point out. They include James O’Keefe, whose conservative outfit does surreptitious taping to embarrass liberals, and who once pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in a case involving Mary Landrieu for entering a building under false pretenses.
They include Ali Alexander, who recently tweeted that Kamala Harris had falsely implied that she was descended from “American Black Slaves.” The biracial senator has been quite open about her parents being from Jamaica and India.
And they include a Trump supporter using the screen name Carpe Donktum, who tweeted an obviously doctored video of Joe Biden’s shoulders being massaged by a second Biden at a time the former veep was being accused of inappropriately touching women.
There’s an important debate raging in the country about the Silicon Valley giants, once among America’s most admired companies, and whether they are biased and allowed their platforms to become a toxic cesspool. The White House session may have scored some points, but mainly from one side.

House Dem blasts 'juvenile' Ocasio-Cortez, chief of staff: 'Ignorance is beyond belief'

The Real Me.

Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., added to the mounting Democratic criticism of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., slamming her "inappropriate" suggestion that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is singling out the New Yorker and her "squad" of fellow freshman because of their race.
Speaking to Fox News on Thursday night, Clay hammered Ocasio-Cortez's suggestion.
"It was such a weak argument to say she was being picked on and that four women of color were being picked on by the speaker," he said.
"It tells you the level of ignorance to American history on their part as to what we are as the Democratic Caucus.
"It is so inappropriate. So uncalled for. It does not do anything to help with unity. It was unfair to Speaker Pelosi."
Clay continued his broadside, saying the comment exposed how much Ocasio-Cortez and Reps. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., have to learn when it comes to being "effective legislators".
"It’s going to take a process of maturing for those freshman members. They will have to learn to be effective legislators," he said.
"It shows their lack of sensitivity to racism. To fall back on that (trope) is a weak argument. It has no place in a civil discussion."
The lawmaker closed his remarks by suggesting the four freshmen could hurt Democratic chances in upcoming elections.
"It shows they have no sensibility to different members from our caucus. Some come from red districts and those are the ones who gave us the majority. We need them all," he said.
His comments followed a feud between Pelosi and freshman congresswomen, like Ocasio-Cortez, that involved racially-charged criticism.
Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, previously compared moderate Democrats to racists -- prompting Pelosi, at the request of some of her members, warn House Democrats not to attack each other on Twitter.
"You got a complaint?  You come and talk to me about it.  But do not tweet about our members and expect us to think that that is just ok," she reportedly said. On the same day of that caucus meeting, Ocasio-Cortez called out Pelosi for what she sees as the speaker continually targeting her and other freshmen lawmakers of color.
"Their ignorance is beyond belief," Clay also said while in the Speaker's Lobby, according to The Hill.
Clay wasn't the only one to attack Ocasio-Cortez on Thursday. "The View" hosts Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg criticized her's and others' decision to attack Democrats like Pelosi. "I think this is more BS," Goldberg said of Ocasio-Cortez's comments on race.
Pelosi, meanwhile, refused to provide further comment on the feud while discussing it during her weekly press briefing.
“I've said what I'm going to say…What I said in the caucus yesterday had an overwhelming response from my members," she said.
"Because they know what the facts are and what we are responding to. We respect the value of every member of our caucus. The diversity of it all is a wonderful thing. Diversity is our strength. Unity is our power."
Fox News' Alex Pappas contributed to this report.

Democrats Eating Their Own Cartoons

Hannity: Dems abusing their power, guilty of 'presidential harassment'

Fox News' host Sean Hannity said Wednesday he has had enough of House Democrats abusing their power calling their investigations into President Trump and Russia "presidential harassment."
"There is no more ambiguity. There's no questions to ask anymore. House Democrats. They're now conducting what is the fifth and sixth investigation into collusion, so-called collusion, that didn't happen," Hannity said on his television show Wednesday.
"The only collusion that happened was Hillary Clinton's dirty dossier. That's how Democrats are spending your tax dollars. This is nothing more at this point than presidential harassment and an abuse of power by them."
Hannity blasted Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and accused them of bankrupting "innocent Americans."
"People like Nadler and the cowardly Schiff leading these brand new probes wasting the country's time and they're now having innocent American citizens that have to once again lawyer up they're going bankrupt in some cases as they're called to answer the same questions for a fourth fifth and sixth time," Hannity said.
"And by the way every time they answer they better answer it perfectly the way they did the last time or else they'll determine that that's perjury. They'll get charged with that and they'll need more lawyers."
The radio host advised those testifying before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees to plead the fifth in order to avoid legal costs and stand up to Democrats.
"My advice to all of those people that willingly testified to Congress that cooperated with the Mueller probe. You know you can plead the Fifth and you know what. It won't cost you a dime. You don't have to hire any more lawyers and you can stand up to this abuse of power," Hannity said.
Hannity also called Nadler and Schiff "content creators" for cable news channel MSNBC.
"Nadler and Schiff they're no longer lawmakers this isn't oversight. This is now them merely can content creators for [MSNBC] and 'Roswell' Rachel Maddow's nonstop anti-Trump conspiracy hours," Hannity said.

Ingraham: California a 'Democrat-induced disaster'

Fox News' Laura Ingraham spoke directly to California Governor Gavin Newsom Wednesday criticizing his response to the homeless crisis after his state gave illegal immigrants Medicaid benefits.
"Gavin, you have runaway homelessness in your state, it's a total crisis right now. Most notably in San Francisco and L.A. It's creating filthy and infectious conditions for Californians and especially those low income citizens who don't send their kids to fancy private schools," Ingraham said Wednesday on "The Ingraham Angle."
Newsom signed a bill into law Tuesday making young illegal immigrants eligible for the Medicaid program in California, making it the first state to offer such taxpayer-funded health benefits to low-income adults age 25 and younger regardless of their immigration status.
The Fox News host criticized California Democrats and warned that the rest of the country could become like California if Democrats have their way.
"My friends, it's all a Democrat-induced disaster. Instead of focusing on things like, I don't know, mental health, infectious disease problems that are plaguing this state, the politicians of California are spending $98 million more to extend health care to illegals. That's on top of the billions they already spend on them," Ingraham said.
"The whole country will soon become the next California if the Democrats get their way."
Ingraham pointed out that Democrats should prioritize Americans over other nationalities who "violate our laws."
"These California Democrats and those seeking national office need to recognize that they were elected to represent the American people in this country, not the people from elsewhere who violate our laws to enter our country," Ingraham said.
Fox News' Frank Miles contributed to this report.

McGrath now says she would've opposed Kavanaugh after left-wing backlash

Cream of the crop Democrat :-)

Amy McGrath said late Wednesday that she would not have voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court after all -- just hours after she told a Kentucky newspaper that she "probably" would have supported Kavanaugh's contentious nomination because there was nothing to "disqualify" him.
McGrath's initial support for Kavanaugh, and her ensuing flip-flop, sparked a fierce backlash from progressive activists supporting her bid to unseat Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Because McGrath had condemned Kavanaugh last year, some observers accused her of committing a rare "double flip-flop."
The dramatic public stumble blunted McGrath's momentum on the same day she announced her campaign had raised $2.5 million in its first 24 hours. It also fueled criticisms from both Republicans and Democrats that the Marine combat aviator may not be a winner in congressional politics.
McGrath was already being widely criticized for her claim in a televised interview earlier on Tuesday that President Trump's election was similar to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and her close defeat in a House race last year disappointed national Democrats.
"You know, I think that with Judge Kavanaugh, yeah, I probably would have voted for him," McGrath told The Louisville Courier-Journal on Wednesday. She also said that it was a "good question" to ask.
"I didn't listen to all of the hearings. I don't think there was anything, and I'm not a lawyer or a senator on the Judiciary Committee, so I don't know the criteria," McGrath offered. "But I was very concerned about Judge Kavanaugh, what I felt like were the far-right stances that he had. However, there was nothing in his record that I think would disqualify him in any way. And the fact is when you have the president and the Senate, this is our system and so I don't think there was anything that would have disqualified him in my mind."

Although McGrath called Christine Blasey Ford's accusations of sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh in high school "credible," she reiterated that she did not view them as "disqualifying."
"Well, I mean I think again, I think it's credible but given the amount of time that lapsed in between and from a judicial standpoint, I don't think it would really disqualify him," McGrath said.
Four hours after her remarks were published, McGrath tweeted a mea culpa that immediately drew scorn from both Democrats and Republicans.
"I was asked earlier today about Judge Brett Kavanaugh and I answered based upon his qualifications to be on the Supreme Court. But upon further reflection and further understanding of his record, I would have voted no," McGrath wrote.
She continued: "I know I disappointed many today with my initial answer on how I would have voted on Brett Kavanaugh. I will make mistakes and always own up to them. The priority is defeating Mitch McConnell."
Reaction on social media was unsparing.
"This, my friends, is what we call an unforced error," journalist Yashar Ali observed.
"Take your third position on this later, the night is young," said Jake Wilkins, the communications director for North Dakota Sen. Kevin Cramer.
Read the headline of an article on the left-wing blog Jezebel: "Unfortunately, the Woman Trying to Unseat Mitch McConnell Also Kind of Sucks."
McGrath narrowly lost a House race to an incumbent Republican in Kentucky last year. During that race, McGrath slammed Kavanaugh and suggested she would not support his confirmation -- leading some prominent commentators on social media to charge that McGrath's flip-flop was actually multi-layered.
"I echo so many of the concerns that others have articulated over the nomination of Judge (Brett) Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court," McGrath wrote July 2018 on Facebook. "He has shown himself to be against women’s reproductive rights, workers' rights, consumer protections and will be among the most partisan people ever considered for the court."
In a tweet on Wednesday, McGrath added: "I echo the concerns over the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh. He's been against women’s reproductive rights, workers' rights, consumer protections, and is a hard-core partisan. But we are reminded, again, that elections have consequences, and this will be with us for a generation."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in D.C. back in January. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

And after Ford's accusation against Kavanaugh came to light, McGrath said she found her to be "compelling."
"That really stands out for me, not to mention the vast disparity in their temperaments and demeanors while testifying," McGrath wrote in a September 2018 Facebook post. "Dr. Ford's testimony was quite compelling."
McGrath's campaign launch Tuesday was aided by a breathless NBC News report hours earlier that McConnell's distant ancestors owned slaves -- a revelation blunted by McConnell pointing out that President Barack Obama's ancestors did as well.
In another striking moment, an eager MSNBC anchor also urged McGrath to tell viewers how they could easily donate to her campaign online.
For her part, despite the apparent assistance from NBC, McGrath acknowledged Tuesday she has a tough task in trying to defeat one of the most entrenched officials in Washington. But she said she sees him as vulnerable because of his lengthy tenure in Washington and his stance on health care.
Her decision to enter the race represented a rare victory for Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who has had difficulty persuading top-tier candidates in other states to take on incumbent Republicans with control of the Senate at stake.
The contest will also test the power of incumbency against a call for generational change, and hint at Trump's popularity is transferable.
McGrath will almost certainly be able to raise enough money to mount a serious challenge to McConnell, 77, but she is still a decided underdog in a state that has not elected a Democrat to the Senate since Wendell Ford in 1992.
"I've been always somebody who stepped up to the plate when asked, when I felt like my country needed me, and this is one of those times," McGrath said in an interview.
She has said that Kentucky voters are not fans of either political party and they supported Trump in part because of his promise to "drain the swamp" in Washington, lower drug prices and deliver a more effective alternative to the Affordable Care Act.
"Those things haven't happened because of guys like Senator McConnell," she said.
McConnell struck back quickly in a Twitter message that presaged what a race between him and McGrath would look like. The tweet strung together a series of quotes from McGrath that depicts her as an out-of-touch liberal who also opposes Trump, and notably his call for a U.S.-Mexico border wall.
McConnell campaign manager Kevin Golden said McGrath lost in 2018 "in a Democratic-wave election because she is an extreme liberal who is far out of touch with Kentuckians."
The Senate majority leader's tone was more sanguine. "It'll be a spirited race," he said Tuesday at the Capitol. He says unlike others, "I actually enjoy campaigns."
Fox News' Sam Dorman and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

AOC ups ante in feud with Pelosi, suggests speaker is 'singling out of newly elected women of color'

Worst thing ever happening to the Democrat Party was allowing Anti American Muslims into the US Government, Period! Love seeing them eat their own :-)

The public spat between Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, got a lot nastier on Wednesday, with the freshman congresswoman suggesting that the speaker is "singling out" her and her colleagues based on their race.
Pelosi has worked to keep the Democratic caucus in line, specifically four newly-elected outspoken progressives: Ocasio-Cortez, Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass..
However, a feud between Pelosi and the quartet escalated after Congress passed a border funding bill that the four young Democrats opposed. Pelosi discussed the bill, and those in her party who oppose it, in an interview last weekend. She told the New York Times: "All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world, but they didn’t have any following. They’re four people, and that’s how many votes they got."
Ocasio-Cortez said to The Washington Post on Wednesday that the "persistent singling out" by the Speaker may be more than "outright disrespectful."
"When these comments first started, I kind of thought that she was keeping the progressive flank at more of an arm’s distance in order to protect more moderate members, which I understood,” Ocasio-Cortez said.
“But the persistent singling out . . . it got to a point where it was just outright disrespectful . . . the explicit singling out of newly elected women of color.”
In an earlier interview with The New Yorker Radio Hour, Ocasio-Cortez accused Congress of using  women and minorities as "bargaining chips."
"When it comes to women of color in Congress, particularly the freshman, it's that we both have encountered and represent communities that have been auctioned off and negotiated off for the last 20 years. And we're over it," Ocasio-Cortez said Tuesday.
"We see in these negotiations all the time--- it's like fighting for black communities or policies that help women. They're bargaining chips. And they're the first chips that are reached for in any legislative negotiations."
On Wednesday, Pelosi also delivered a stern message to her caucus, telling House Democrats: "You got a complaint? You come and talk to me about it. But do not tweet about our members and expect us to think that that is just okay."