Do we want Congressional oversight, or not?

[Seymour Flops]

I would have thought that there would be universal agreement that we do. I've only met one person in my life who openly stated that the executive should be be in charge and congress should butt out. But there is one other set of folks who do not believe in Congressional oversight: Agency officials who testify in front of Congress.

Usually, this is a difficult issue to have an honest discussion on, because when agency heads refuse to answer questions posed by Congress, the partisan reasons are obvious, and the discussion devolves.

But look at Christopher Wray refusing to answer questions from both sides of the isle:



Chris Wray does not have a background that would lead him to be a Deepstate stooge. He has demonstrated that he can make it in the private sector, and his government service prior to being named FBI director was fairly apolitical. Which is why Trump chose him in an effort to de-politicize the FBI.

Didn't work, obviously. We get just as much stonewalling from Wray as we ever did from Eric Holder and James Comey. They seem to take pride in using as many words as possible to say, "I'm not tellin'," and in varying their absurd justifications.

I'm starting to wonder if the FBI is not up to its J. Edgar era trick of gathering dirt on politicians in order to keep them in line with what the Deepstate wants. Because Wray acts for all the world like a lifetime FBI ladder climber, in the vein of Peter Struck (I don't care how he spells it), even though he never carried a gun and badge until his fifties.

 

[Oddball]

Wray is near the head of the list of scum who need the old one-way helicopter ride.

 

[Meister]

Congressional oversight?
No such thing, hasn't been any in my lifetime.

 

[Dekster]

I am all for congressional oversight. I am not sure many members of congress are interested in it TBH. They want the clips for the campaigns and evening news spots. Maybe get themselves some invites to the sunday morning shows. Throwing gotchas at the head hauncho expecting him or her to be able to talk intamately about whatever random thing you want to talk about while only one side is under penalty of perjury is a tad realistic. At the very least, swear in the members and put them under penalty of perjury for every hair brained thing they allege as fact just to keep it sporting.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I am all for congressional oversight. I am not sure many members of congress are interested in it TBH. They want the clips for the campaigns and evening news spots. Maybe get themselves some invites to the sunday morning shows.

I agree with that. But that is part of having an elected representative form of government, and it isn't a bad thing.

The questions they ask are questions that their voters want to know, so they ask them to have the clips and the news spots. Like when Hawley asked about why the Sheriffs of his state are being asked to turn over concealed carry permit information, when it is illegal under Missouri law for them to do so. That's something his voters want to know, so that's something he asks.

I don't want a congress that thinks it doesn't have to worry about the voters and can just do what they think best or whatever is most advantageous to their political agenda. That's what we have now with these out of control and unaccountable executive agencies.

Throwing gotchas at the head hauncho expecting him or her to be able to talk intamately about whatever random thing you want to talk about while only one side is under penalty of perjury is a tad realistic.

Strongly disagree with that one. Often the members are asking questions that they asked the last hearing and got no answer, then sent letters re-asking the questions and got no answer, and now the Deepstater testifying acts like it never occurred to them to come ready to answer. They do not want to answer, that's the problem.

Did you see Wray responding to Hawley asking if he had seen a letter he sent him about the concealed carry (1:37:40)? "I, I, have had a chance to glance at it, yes." Really? From a Senator, and you "glance at it?" I say if they refuse to answer based on not having bothered to read the letter, call them back the next week and ask again. Keep calling until they give a legitimate answer.

At the very least, swear in the members and put them under penalty of perjury for every hair brained thing they allege as fact just to keep it sporting.

I'd be more than fine with that. I don't ever think members of congress should lie to the people, especially during hearings, when prefacing questions. I guess this is partisan, but these days the Democratic lawmakers would never agree to that, based on what I've seen in hearing recently.

But, no need to cry for the poor agency heads being disadvantaged by being under oath and unable to lie without legal risk. As Hawley pointed out in the same block, when they give a vague answer and promise to forward more complete written responses, they can forward them without being under oath.

How about any follow up to sworn testimony being in the form of a sworn affidavit? I know as a Joe Schmoe, taxpaying citizen, not of the elite class, I could never get away with refusing to answer questions under oath, but promising to follow up in an unsworn format.

 

[SavannahMann]

Ok. Let’s see if we can explain it. By Congressional Oversight most idiots in the world want their side watching the other side.

Let me explain further. When Democrats are in charge they don’t want anyone overseeing anything. That just slows things down. The exact same thing is true of Republicans. They equally want to oversee the other side and object to being overseen themselves.

 

[woodwork201]

There's nothing at all in the Constitution that allows congressional oversight. Does the President get oversight over Congress? Equal branches, right?

Congress certainly can ask for hearings but has zero police power according to the Constitution; they can't, according to the Constitution, subpoena or enforce a subpoena. If the Executive does not provide the information that Congress wants or needs for a legislative purpose then their choice is to defund whatever Executive functionality they are looking into or, if it is a criminal question, perhaps to impeach the President or Senate approved officers.

I know we conservatives are all anxious for the Republicans to investigate this or that as soon as they take the Congress but, in the end, what difference will it make?

Remember Grassley and Gowdy in the Fast and Furious hearings? They were wonderful, asking tough questions, dropping awesome soundbites, providing Fox News with fantastic video clips, and just overall making great campaign videos. Other than that, what did they do? Not a damn thing.

What do you think the Republicans are going to do when they hold hearings in 2023? They're going to ask some tough questions, drop some awesome soundbites, provide Fox News with some fantastic videos, and just overall make great campaign videos for 2024. And that's all that's going to happen.

What they should do, but they won't, is to impeach Joe Biden, Christopher Wray, Merrick Garland, and several others. They won't impeach anyone.

 

[Seymour Flops]

There's nothing at all in the Constitution that allows congressional oversight. Does the President get oversight over Congress? Equal branches, right?

Valid point.

Congress certainly can ask for hearings but has zero police power according to the Constitution; they can't, according to the Constitution, subpoena or enforce a subpoena. If the Executive does not provide the information that Congress wants or needs for a legislative purpose then their choice is to defund whatever Executive functionality they are looking into or, if it is a criminal question, perhaps to impeach the President or Senate approved officers.

Thank you for bringing up the part about de-funding. That used to be congresses stick with which to enforce their oversight of executive agencies. No more. Post-9/11, no one has the balls to de-fund security agencies, for fear of being blamed for the next 9/11. So those agencies do whatever they want, and we are now a security state instead of a free state.

Even agencies like the US Department of Agriculture are immune from budget cuts to stop their excesses. The USDA regulates local district school lunches. Why? Because the want to, I guess. Cut their funding and they won't stop regulating school lunches, they'll stop inspecting formula factories and babies wills starve. The fund cutters will be blamed, of course.

I know we conservatives are all anxious for the Republicans to investigate this or that as soon as they take the Congress but, in the end, what difference will it make?

Remember Grassley and Gowdy in the Fast and Furious hearings? They were wonderful, asking tough questions, dropping awesome soundbites, providing Fox News with fantastic video clips, and just overall making great campaign videos. Other than that, what did they do? Not a damn thing.

Because Obama's "wingman," Eric Holder stonewalled them.

What do you think the Republicans are going to do when they hold hearings in 2023? They're going to ask some tough questions, drop some awesome soundbites, provide Fox News with some fantastic videos, and just overall make great campaign videos for 2024. And that's all that's going to happen.

It will provide good theater and maybe slow them down from passing spending and taxing bills.

What they should do, but they won't, is to impeach Joe Biden, Christopher Wray, Merrick Garland, and several others. They won't impeach anyone.

Why not? Impeachment is a simple majority vote. It's just a "vote of no confidence" now, exactly what the founders wanted to avoid. Dems in congress are gearing up to impeach Trump for the third time, and he's not even in the White House, just living rent-free in the heads of the American left.

 

[Clipper]

Wray is near the head of the list of scum who need the old one-way helicopter ride.

We gave Trump a one way helicopter ride on Jan. 20. Best thing to happen to this Country since Nixon took his back in '74.

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

I would have thought that there would be universal agreement that we do. I've only met one person in my life who openly stated that the executive should be be in charge and congress should butt out. But there is one other set of folks who do not believe in Congressional oversight: Agency officials who testify in front of Congress.

Usually, this is a difficult issue to have an honest discussion on, because when agency heads refuse to answer questions posed by Congress, the partisan reasons are obvious, and the discussion devolves.

But look at Christopher Wray refusing to answer questions from both sides of the isle:



Chris Wray does not have a background that would lead him to be a Deepstate stooge. He has demonstrated that he can make it in the private sector, and his government service prior to being named FBI director was fairly apolitical. Which is why Trump chose him in an effort to de-politicize the FBI.

Didn't work, obviously. We get just as much stonewalling from Wray as we ever did from Eric Holder and James Comey. They seem to take pride in using as many words as possible to say, "I'm not tellin'," and in varying their absurd justifications.

I'm starting to wonder if the FBI is not up to its J. Edgar era trick of gathering dirt on politicians in order to keep them in line with what the Deepstate wants. Because Wray acts for all the world like a lifetime FBI ladder climber, in the vein of Peter Struck (I don't care how he spells it), even though he never carried a gun and badge until his fifties.

I agree, the fbi went rogue. They sp on everyone and what they find they use to control . Just look at all the mass shooters , the fbi knows about them . They seem to know about everyone .