As I was working one morning this spring, in the background was the congressional committee, chaired by Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who had called for testimony from the director of the FBI, James Comey, and the director of the National Security Agency, Michael Rogers. The topic was Russia, of course, in that the Democrats were still on their RussiaRussiaRussia kick, trying to find something with which to undercut the presidency of Donald Trump.
There was, of course, a great deal of non-answering going on. This is to be expected, as it was an exceptional case that a sitting FBI director and a sitting NSA director would testify to an open committee hearing in regard to an ongoing investigation, or at least the existence of an investigation. "I can't answer that" was a common -- the most common -- answer, and understandable.
I wonder some things, though. OK, I wonder a lot of things, but several in regard to the hearings yesterday.
First, and perhaps the least relevant is this. Trey Gowdy was a prosecutor for some 15 years or so. I have to wonder if he ever lost a case. His questioning of the two directors was so critically focused, with such detailed chains of logic, that he could get his points across through the asking of the questions themselves. The answers were almost obligatory in following. If I were the criminal and he were the prosecutor, I'd cop a plea.
Second, though, is more able to be generalized. Congressional hearings are a stinking mess. The committees cycle through alternate allocations of time among the chairman, the ranking member (from the opposing, minority party), and the members of the committee in alternating party membership.
It would be nice, be helpful and be immensely more engaging for the poor person being questioned, if the congressman asking the questions was required to ask at least one question for every declarative sentence that they make. Would that not be better than the interminable speeches made by the committee members prior to asking a question, that may or may not have any connection to the speech preceding it?
I could not help watching the bored expressions on the part of the two directors as the committee members spoke so many words just to hear themselves speak ... on and on ... finally getting to an actual question that, as noted, as often as not could not be answered in a public committee hearing. If I were either of them, I would call for a bladder break every 20 minutes or so.
In fact, perhaps I would be less kind. I would be yawning through the declarative sentences. I would be saying, "Could you repeat all of the preceding statements, with the original intonation, so that I might possibly understand and distinguish your speech to the audience from the actual question to me -- there was a question in all that, right?"
OK, that might have sounded like contempt of Congress, but if congressmen act contemptibly, is not contempt warranted?
And I suppose there is a "third" thing to ask. If we peeled out all the speechifying in committee hearings, would not the committee members be freed up to do more actual legislative work to the betterment of the nation? How about giving each member five minutes instead of 15, and enforcing a "Questions Only" rule?
I was so struggling to have my attention not be diverted by, I don't know, my work, my cat, anything that moved, trees swaying in the window.
*Feline attention diverter (as Yoda) *
Let congressmen make speeches on their time, not mine, thanks.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
