You're Gonna Starve to Death! Trey Gowdy Dismantles Professor Charles Tiefer

[1776]

Liberal scum don't like a conservative talking back to them, because liberals can't defend their own bullshit.

 

[Katzndogz]

The professor should have been arrested immediately. Maybe a night in holding would improve his cooperation.

 

[Siete]

In more of the same, Trey Gowdy is seen once again seen here educating Democratic Law Professor Charles Tiefer on the finer points of litigate processes, and giving some dietary advice to boot. Charles Tiefer was quoted on July 16 describing John Boehner's lawsuit against Obama as "meritless" and "a big loser." The transcript and video are below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wHO47mBGh9w

Gowdy: Professor Tiefer, would you seat a juror who referred to your client as an obscene body part?

Professor Tiefer: (Long Pause) I'm sorry I--

Gowdy: (Repeats himself) Would you seat a juror in a trial, who referred to your client as an obscene body part?

Professor Tiefer: I really have trouble to giving you an answer except that--

Gowdy: Well, then you would starve to death as a lawyer if you can’t answer that question, Professor. You would seriously consider seating a juror in a trial, a criminal trial, where your client was accused of a crime, if that juror had referred to your client as an obscene body part, you would struggle with whether or not to strike that juror?

Professor Tiefer: Uh, it doesn't sound too good.

Gowdy: No it's not, and I'll give you some free litigation advice, you'll want to use one of your strikes on that juror. How about if you were a prosecutor, and one of the potential jurors referred to the police as 'terrorists' who were going to bring the country down? Would you seat that juror in a criminal prosecution if you were the prosecutor?

Professor Tiefer: (Long Pause) I wish I saw the connection here, but--

Gowdy: I'll give you the connection! Lois Lerner just referred to conservatives as an obscene body part, and she said we were 'crazies' and likened us to terrorists!

Representative from Georgia: Well Mr. Chairman, uh if--

Gowdy: You are not recognized! The gentleman from Georgia is not recognized!

Representative from Georgia: Well, would the gentleman yield?

Gowdy: No sir, I will not. (Continues) Let's go to the regulation Professor. Conflict of interest for the Department. People like standards, they like bright lines, so I thought it would be interesting to go find out what the Attorney General's standard is for recusal--and you know when he recuses himself? I'll quote him: "When there's the potential appearance of a conflict." He recused himself from a criminal prosecution (emphasis added) when there's the potential appearance of a conflict. Those are his words, not mine. So that's the standard for when there should be a conflict; I want us to analyze whether or not there could possibly be the potential appearance of a conflict.

Professor Tiefer: (speaks inaudibly, Gowdy continues)

Gowdy: You have the President of the United States-- (digresses) when I ask a question it will be very clear, Professor. The President of The United States in the most widely viewed television show in our country said there's "not a smidgen of corruption." You don't think that is 'the potential appearance of a conflict?'

Professor Tiefer: For the issue of a Special Counsel...which is...what I'm here for--

Gowdy: How about giving me a 'yes' or a 'no,' then you can explain your answer.

Professor Tiefer: I think it is irrelevant what the President says to whether there's a conflict of interest--

Gowdy: What if a judge says "Let's go give that guilty bastard a trial?" Is that irrelevant? Would you want that judge? If he prejudged the outcome of a prosecution, said "let's go give this guilty guy a fair trial?"

Professor Tiefer: Given the independence of the public integrity sector for the last 30 years, I don't think it matters--

Gowdy: So you don't think it matters that the chief law enforcement officer for this country, before there is an investigation, while there are e-mails missing, before he's analyzed one scintilla of evidence, prejudges and says "there's not a scintilla of corruption?" You don't think that matters. You don't even think it creates the potential appearance of a conflict.

Professor Tiefer: I absolutely reject that the standard here is the standard you're naming for recusal. If he recuses himself, it's still the same--

Gowdy: How about when the Department of Justice trades e-mails--

(Tiefer is still talking, meanwhile)

Gowdy: --with Lois Lerner seeking to implement an idea from a Democrat Senator? Do you know Senator Whitehouse? (Points)

Professor Tiefer: My understanding was the idea was rejected after the meeting in question, that the idea--

Gowdy: I'm simply saying, do you really want the Department of Justice and the IRS taking their prosecutorial advice from a Democrat Senator?

Professor Tiefer: (inaudible)

Gowdy: I thought the Department of Justice was blindfolded?

Professor Tiefer: I'm glad they rejected the idea.

Gowdy: I'm sad that they even discussed it. I'm sad that they even discussed pursuing--because when the AG sits where Professor Rotunda is, all we hear about is how he doesn't have the resources to actually do his job. And now they're gonna contemplate manufacturing false statement cases?

Professor Tiefer: The standards--

Gowdy: So you do not think there's even the potential appearance of a conflict?

Professor Tiefer: That's not the standard. You're talking about recusal, which is whether the AG or the Deputy AG deals with the matter. That's recusal.

Gowdy: Just so the record's clear, you don't think there's even a potential appearance of a conflict. We're not even gonna get into (inaudible). How about extraordinary circumstances? Do you think it is extraordinary when a government agency targets people based on their political ideology? Do you think that is extraordinary?

Professor Tiefer: I think it is an issue of what the Department of Justice not the IRS--the IRS is much criticized--and (stammers) I assume rightly so, but the Department of Justice under the special counsel regulations is the one we're talking about.

Gowdy: Well, tell you what, let's go to the third element: how whether it would be in the public interest to do so; would you agree to let our fellow citizens decide whether or not they think a special prosecutor is warranted in this case? That's the third element. And by the way, the Attorney General drafted this regulation, the CFR, so I assume he put in there it would be in the public interest to do so. Would you agree to let our fellow citizens decide whether or not there should be a special prosecutor?

Professor Tiefer: You mean by polls?

Gowdy: However!

Professor Tiefer: I don't think the polls should tell the Department of Justice what laws to enforce.

Gowdy: So you see no potential conflict of interest, you don't think that this is an extraordinary fact pattern, and you don't trust your fellow citizens to make the call?

Professor Tiefer: It's not a matter of trusting. You can't run a Department of Justice and decide extraordinary questions of the law by poll numbers. No, I would--

Gowdy: Neither can you prejudge the outcome of an investigation that hasn't even started. You can't do that when you are the Chief Law Enforcement Officer for this country. And it wasn't a hot-mic situation where he's whispering to Eric Holder, it's on the most watched television show in our culture, and he prejudges an investigation; and you want us to expect that the outcome of this is going to have any validity or credibility? It's not gonna happen. And with that I would recognize the gentleman from Idaho.

END

Given the utter lack of respect shown to the Professor by the Congressman this was nothing but political grandstanding. If I was the Professor I would have got up and walked out. Furthermore I would not return without a written apology from the Congressman. And if he tried holding me in contempt of Congress I would take it to court and let a judge and jury decide who was being contemptible in that instance.

There was no need for that kind of disrespect towards a distinguished Professor of law. However I am sure that there are those who consider this to be acceptable behavior for members of Congress. In my opinion this was just another example of why the We the People only give Congress a 7% approval rating. If it was up to me this Congressman would have a negative rating because he doesn't know how to conduct himself in a manner befitting a representative of the people.

All of that could have been accomplished without the histrionics. It was political theater of the worst kind. Whatever happened to the honorable southern gentlemen of yore who could make their point without berating it?

there's a fine line between class and ass... I agree with your opinion 100%.

 

[TemplarKormac]

In more of the same, Trey Gowdy is seen once again seen here educating Democratic Law Professor Charles Tiefer on the finer points of litigate processes, and giving some dietary advice to boot. Charles Tiefer was quoted on July 16 describing John Boehner's lawsuit against Obama as "meritless" and "a big loser." The transcript and video are below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wHO47mBGh9w

Gowdy: Professor Tiefer, would you seat a juror who referred to your client as an obscene body part?

Professor Tiefer: (Long Pause) I'm sorry I--

Gowdy: (Repeats himself) Would you seat a juror in a trial, who referred to your client as an obscene body part?

Professor Tiefer: I really have trouble to giving you an answer except that--

Gowdy: Well, then you would starve to death as a lawyer if you can’t answer that question, Professor. You would seriously consider seating a juror in a trial, a criminal trial, where your client was accused of a crime, if that juror had referred to your client as an obscene body part, you would struggle with whether or not to strike that juror?

Professor Tiefer: Uh, it doesn't sound too good.

Gowdy: No it's not, and I'll give you some free litigation advice, you'll want to use one of your strikes on that juror. How about if you were a prosecutor, and one of the potential jurors referred to the police as 'terrorists' who were going to bring the country down? Would you seat that juror in a criminal prosecution if you were the prosecutor?

Professor Tiefer: (Long Pause) I wish I saw the connection here, but--

Gowdy: I'll give you the connection! Lois Lerner just referred to conservatives as an obscene body part, and she said we were 'crazies' and likened us to terrorists!

Representative from Georgia: Well Mr. Chairman, uh if--

Gowdy: You are not recognized! The gentleman from Georgia is not recognized!

Representative from Georgia: Well, would the gentleman yield?

Gowdy: No sir, I will not. (Continues) Let's go to the regulation Professor. Conflict of interest for the Department. People like standards, they like bright lines, so I thought it would be interesting to go find out what the Attorney General's standard is for recusal--and you know when he recuses himself? I'll quote him: "When there's the potential appearance of a conflict." He recused himself from a criminal prosecution (emphasis added) when there's the potential appearance of a conflict. Those are his words, not mine. So that's the standard for when there should be a conflict; I want us to analyze whether or not there could possibly be the potential appearance of a conflict.

Professor Tiefer: (speaks inaudibly, Gowdy continues)

Gowdy: You have the President of the United States-- (digresses) when I ask a question it will be very clear, Professor. The President of The United States in the most widely viewed television show in our country said there's "not a smidgen of corruption." You don't think that is 'the potential appearance of a conflict?'

Professor Tiefer: For the issue of a Special Counsel...which is...what I'm here for--

Gowdy: How about giving me a 'yes' or a 'no,' then you can explain your answer.

Professor Tiefer: I think it is irrelevant what the President says to whether there's a conflict of interest--

Gowdy: What if a judge says "Let's go give that guilty bastard a trial?" Is that irrelevant? Would you want that judge? If he prejudged the outcome of a prosecution, said "let's go give this guilty guy a fair trial?"

Professor Tiefer: Given the independence of the public integrity sector for the last 30 years, I don't think it matters--

Gowdy: So you don't think it matters that the chief law enforcement officer for this country, before there is an investigation, while there are e-mails missing, before he's analyzed one scintilla of evidence, prejudges and says "there's not a scintilla of corruption?" You don't think that matters. You don't even think it creates the potential appearance of a conflict.

Professor Tiefer: I absolutely reject that the standard here is the standard you're naming for recusal. If he recuses himself, it's still the same--

Gowdy: How about when the Department of Justice trades e-mails--

(Tiefer is still talking, meanwhile)

Gowdy: --with Lois Lerner seeking to implement an idea from a Democrat Senator? Do you know Senator Whitehouse? (Points)

Professor Tiefer: My understanding was the idea was rejected after the meeting in question, that the idea--

Gowdy: I'm simply saying, do you really want the Department of Justice and the IRS taking their prosecutorial advice from a Democrat Senator?

Professor Tiefer: (inaudible)

Gowdy: I thought the Department of Justice was blindfolded?

Professor Tiefer: I'm glad they rejected the idea.

Gowdy: I'm sad that they even discussed it. I'm sad that they even discussed pursuing--because when the AG sits where Professor Rotunda is, all we hear about is how he doesn't have the resources to actually do his job. And now they're gonna contemplate manufacturing false statement cases?

Professor Tiefer: The standards--

Gowdy: So you do not think there's even the potential appearance of a conflict?

Professor Tiefer: That's not the standard. You're talking about recusal, which is whether the AG or the Deputy AG deals with the matter. That's recusal.

Gowdy: Just so the record's clear, you don't think there's even a potential appearance of a conflict. We're not even gonna get into (inaudible). How about extraordinary circumstances? Do you think it is extraordinary when a government agency targets people based on their political ideology? Do you think that is extraordinary?

Professor Tiefer: I think it is an issue of what the Department of Justice not the IRS--the IRS is much criticized--and (stammers) I assume rightly so, but the Department of Justice under the special counsel regulations is the one we're talking about.

Gowdy: Well, tell you what, let's go to the third element: how whether it would be in the public interest to do so; would you agree to let our fellow citizens decide whether or not they think a special prosecutor is warranted in this case? That's the third element. And by the way, the Attorney General drafted this regulation, the CFR, so I assume he put in there it would be in the public interest to do so. Would you agree to let our fellow citizens decide whether or not there should be a special prosecutor?

Professor Tiefer: You mean by polls?

Gowdy: However!

Professor Tiefer: I don't think the polls should tell the Department of Justice what laws to enforce.

Gowdy: So you see no potential conflict of interest, you don't think that this is an extraordinary fact pattern, and you don't trust your fellow citizens to make the call?

Professor Tiefer: It's not a matter of trusting. You can't run a Department of Justice and decide extraordinary questions of the law by poll numbers. No, I would--

Gowdy: Neither can you prejudge the outcome of an investigation that hasn't even started. You can't do that when you are the Chief Law Enforcement Officer for this country. And it wasn't a hot-mic situation where he's whispering to Eric Holder, it's on the most watched television show in our culture, and he prejudges an investigation; and you want us to expect that the outcome of this is going to have any validity or credibility? It's not gonna happen. And with that I would recognize the gentleman from Idaho.

END

Given the utter lack of respect shown to the Professor by the Congressman this was nothing but political grandstanding. If I was the Professor I would have got up and walked out. Furthermore I would not return without a written apology from the Congressman. And if he tried holding me in contempt of Congress I would take it to court and let a judge and jury decide who was being contemptible in that instance.

There was no need for that kind of disrespect towards a distinguished Professor of law. However I am sure that there are those who consider this to be acceptable behavior for members of Congress. In my opinion this was just another example of why the We the People only give Congress a 7% approval rating. If it was up to me this Congressman would have a negative rating because he doesn't know how to conduct himself in a manner befitting a representative of the people.

All of that could have been accomplished without the histrionics. It was political theater of the worst kind. Whatever happened to the honorable southern gentlemen of yore who could make their point without berating it?

What do you think would happen if someone refused to answer a question you asked? Hmm? Would you sit there and say "I'm sorry for wasting your time, next witness please!" Trey Gowdy is a former prosecutor, it's his nature to interrogate, not beat around the bush. And the lack of respect given to these conservative groups by the IRS and the DOJ does not impart respect on those involved with or associated with these two organizations.

It's only political theater when a Republican grills a Democrat, then it's Congress doing it's job when a Democrat grills a Republican. And Derideo, being a southern gentleman myself, I can tell you that you know squat about 'the southern gentleman of yore.' When you pussyfoot around an issue with a southern man, you'll receive the same response that Tiefer got from Gowdy. Did you not see how he attempted to evade the questioning?

Read the transcript. All Tiefer had to do was give a yes or no answer.

 

[TemplarKormac]

In more of the same, Trey Gowdy is seen once again seen here educating Democratic Law Professor Charles Tiefer on the finer points of litigate processes, and giving some dietary advice to boot. Charles Tiefer was quoted on July 16 describing John Boehner's lawsuit against Obama as "meritless" and "a big loser." The transcript and video are below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wHO47mBGh9w

Given the utter lack of respect shown to the Professor by the Congressman this was nothing but political grandstanding. If I was the Professor I would have got up and walked out. Furthermore I would not return without a written apology from the Congressman. And if he tried holding me in contempt of Congress I would take it to court and let a judge and jury decide who was being contemptible in that instance.

There was no need for that kind of disrespect towards a distinguished Professor of law. However I am sure that there are those who consider this to be acceptable behavior for members of Congress. In my opinion this was just another example of why the We the People only give Congress a 7% approval rating. If it was up to me this Congressman would have a negative rating because he doesn't know how to conduct himself in a manner befitting a representative of the people.

All of that could have been accomplished without the histrionics. It was political theater of the worst kind. Whatever happened to the honorable southern gentlemen of yore who could make their point without berating it?

there's a fine line between class and ass... I agree with your opinion 100%.

How lazy of you. You had no opinion so you went on cheerleading... cute.

 

[Derideo_Te]

In more of the same, Trey Gowdy is seen once again seen here educating Democratic Law Professor Charles Tiefer on the finer points of litigate processes, and giving some dietary advice to boot. Charles Tiefer was quoted on July 16 describing John Boehner's lawsuit against Obama as "meritless" and "a big loser." The transcript and video are below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wHO47mBGh9w

Given the utter lack of respect shown to the Professor by the Congressman this was nothing but political grandstanding. If I was the Professor I would have got up and walked out. Furthermore I would not return without a written apology from the Congressman. And if he tried holding me in contempt of Congress I would take it to court and let a judge and jury decide who was being contemptible in that instance.

There was no need for that kind of disrespect towards a distinguished Professor of law. However I am sure that there are those who consider this to be acceptable behavior for members of Congress. In my opinion this was just another example of why the We the People only give Congress a 7% approval rating. If it was up to me this Congressman would have a negative rating because he doesn't know how to conduct himself in a manner befitting a representative of the people.

All of that could have been accomplished without the histrionics. It was political theater of the worst kind. Whatever happened to the honorable southern gentlemen of yore who could make their point without berating it?

What do you think would happen if someone refused to answer a question you asked? Hmm? Would you sit there and say "I'm sorry for wasting your time, next witness please!" Trey Gowdy is a former prosecutor, it's his nature to interrogate, not beat around the bush. And the lack of respect given to these conservative groups by the IRS and the DOJ does not impart respect on those involved with or associated with these two organizations.

It's only political theater when a Republican grills a Democrat, then it's Congress doing it's job when a Democrat grills a Republican. And Derideo, being a southern gentleman myself, I can tell you that you know squat about 'the southern gentleman of yore.' When you pussyfoot around an issue with a southern man, you'll receive the same response that Tiefer got from Gowdy. Did you not see how he attempted to evade the questioning?

Read the transcript. All Tiefer had to do was give a yes or no answer.

Strange how there is not a single mention of this on FoxNews, MSNBC or CNN.

It is all over the extreme rightwing blogosphere but none of the MSM outlets are carrying this shameful theater of the absurd. Perhaps that is just as well because if they did the opinion of the extreme right and the GOP would only sink even further amongst the center moderates like myself.

 

[deltex1]

How about a Trey Gowdy / Megyn Kelly ticket?

 

[Zander]

 

[Siete]

Given the utter lack of respect shown to the Professor by the Congressman this was nothing but political grandstanding. If I was the Professor I would have got up and walked out. Furthermore I would not return without a written apology from the Congressman. And if he tried holding me in contempt of Congress I would take it to court and let a judge and jury decide who was being contemptible in that instance.

There was no need for that kind of disrespect towards a distinguished Professor of law. However I am sure that there are those who consider this to be acceptable behavior for members of Congress. In my opinion this was just another example of why the We the People only give Congress a 7% approval rating. If it was up to me this Congressman would have a negative rating because he doesn't know how to conduct himself in a manner befitting a representative of the people.

All of that could have been accomplished without the histrionics. It was political theater of the worst kind. Whatever happened to the honorable southern gentlemen of yore who could make their point without berating it?

there's a fine line between class and ass... I agree with your opinion 100%.

How lazy of you. You had no opinion so you went on cheerleading... cute.

thank you !

 

[TemplarKormac]

Given the utter lack of respect shown to the Professor by the Congressman this was nothing but political grandstanding. If I was the Professor I would have got up and walked out. Furthermore I would not return without a written apology from the Congressman. And if he tried holding me in contempt of Congress I would take it to court and let a judge and jury decide who was being contemptible in that instance.

There was no need for that kind of disrespect towards a distinguished Professor of law. However I am sure that there are those who consider this to be acceptable behavior for members of Congress. In my opinion this was just another example of why the We the People only give Congress a 7% approval rating. If it was up to me this Congressman would have a negative rating because he doesn't know how to conduct himself in a manner befitting a representative of the people.

All of that could have been accomplished without the histrionics. It was political theater of the worst kind. Whatever happened to the honorable southern gentlemen of yore who could make their point without berating it?

What do you think would happen if someone refused to answer a question you asked? Hmm? Would you sit there and say "I'm sorry for wasting your time, next witness please!" Trey Gowdy is a former prosecutor, it's his nature to interrogate, not beat around the bush. And the lack of respect given to these conservative groups by the IRS and the DOJ does not impart respect on those involved with or associated with these two organizations.

It's only political theater when a Republican grills a Democrat, then it's Congress doing it's job when a Democrat grills a Republican. And Derideo, being a southern gentleman myself, I can tell you that you know squat about 'the southern gentleman of yore.' When you pussyfoot around an issue with a southern man, you'll receive the same response that Tiefer got from Gowdy. Did you not see how he attempted to evade the questioning?

Read the transcript. All Tiefer had to do was give a yes or no answer.

Strange how there is not a single mention of this on FoxNews, MSNBC or CNN.

It is all over the extreme rightwing blogosphere but none of the MSM outlets are carrying this shameful theater of the absurd. Perhaps that is just as well because if they did the opinion of the extreme right and the GOP would only sink even further amongst the center moderates like myself.

Nice deflection, but no.

Your crystal ball is busted Deri. And what does it matter if the media doesn't report this stuff? People make the mistake of thinking they are credible if they get talked about by the media. Anywho, that was a nice JakeStarkey impression.

Isn't it strange that when someone like you disagrees with an opinion or behavior, it gets dismissed as 'extreme?' Isn't it strange that people don't care about something bad until it happens to them? All Tiefer had to do was give a straight answer.

Oh well.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Grown up Draco Malfoy is being an obscene body part during that whole video.

If you can't see the obvious corrupt behavior by this administration over this issue then you're lost.

 

[Siete]

What do you think would happen if someone refused to answer a question you asked? Hmm? Would you sit there and say "I'm sorry for wasting your time, next witness please!" Trey Gowdy is a former prosecutor, it's his nature to interrogate, not beat around the bush. And the lack of respect given to these conservative groups by the IRS and the DOJ does not impart respect on those involved with or associated with these two organizations.

It's only political theater when a Republican grills a Democrat, then it's Congress doing it's job when a Democrat grills a Republican. And Derideo, being a southern gentleman myself, I can tell you that you know squat about 'the southern gentleman of yore.' When you pussyfoot around an issue with a southern man, you'll receive the same response that Tiefer got from Gowdy. Did you not see how he attempted to evade the questioning?

Read the transcript. All Tiefer had to do was give a yes or no answer.

Strange how there is not a single mention of this on FoxNews, MSNBC or CNN.

It is all over the extreme rightwing blogosphere but none of the MSM outlets are carrying this shameful theater of the absurd. Perhaps that is just as well because if they did the opinion of the extreme right and the GOP would only sink even further amongst the center moderates like myself.

Nice deflection, but no.

Your crystal ball is busted Deri. And what does it matter if the media doesn't report this stuff? People make the mistake of thinking they are credible if they get talked about by the media. Anywho, that was a nice JakeStarkey impression.

Isn't it strange that when someone like you disagrees with an opinion or behavior, it gets dismissed as 'extreme?' Isn't it strange that people don't care about something bad until it happens to them? All Tiefer had to do was give a straight answer.

Oh well.

not as strange as people making a mountain out of a molehill ... but it takes all types.... the molehillers have lost back to back presidential elections if that tells you anything ?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Strange how there is not a single mention of this on FoxNews, MSNBC or CNN.

It is all over the extreme rightwing blogosphere but none of the MSM outlets are carrying this shameful theater of the absurd. Perhaps that is just as well because if they did the opinion of the extreme right and the GOP would only sink even further amongst the center moderates like myself.

Nice deflection, but no.

Your crystal ball is busted Deri. And what does it matter if the media doesn't report this stuff? People make the mistake of thinking they are credible if they get talked about by the media. Anywho, that was a nice JakeStarkey impression.

Isn't it strange that when someone like you disagrees with an opinion or behavior, it gets dismissed as 'extreme?' Isn't it strange that people don't care about something bad until it happens to them? All Tiefer had to do was give a straight answer.

Oh well.

not as strange as people making a mountain out of a molehill ... but it takes all types.... the molehillers have lost back to back presidential elections if that tells you anything ?

Well, you're one of the types who would rather see a molehill than a mountain.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What do you think would happen if someone refused to answer a question you asked? Hmm? Would you sit there and say "I'm sorry for wasting your time, next witness please!" Trey Gowdy is a former prosecutor, it's his nature to interrogate, not beat around the bush. And the lack of respect given to these conservative groups by the IRS and the DOJ does not impart respect on those involved with or associated with these two organizations.

It's only political theater when a Republican grills a Democrat, then it's Congress doing it's job when a Democrat grills a Republican. And Derideo, being a southern gentleman myself, I can tell you that you know squat about 'the southern gentleman of yore.' When you pussyfoot around an issue with a southern man, you'll receive the same response that Tiefer got from Gowdy. Did you not see how he attempted to evade the questioning?

Read the transcript. All Tiefer had to do was give a yes or no answer.

Strange how there is not a single mention of this on FoxNews, MSNBC or CNN.

It is all over the extreme rightwing blogosphere but none of the MSM outlets are carrying this shameful theater of the absurd. Perhaps that is just as well because if they did the opinion of the extreme right and the GOP would only sink even further amongst the center moderates like myself.

Nice deflection, but no.

Your crystal ball is busted Deri. And what does it matter if the media doesn't report this stuff? People make the mistake of thinking they are credible if they get talked about by the media. Anywho, that was a nice JakeStarkey impression.

Isn't it strange that when someone like you disagrees with an opinion or behavior, it gets dismissed as 'extreme?' Isn't it strange that people don't care about something bad until it happens to them? All Tiefer had to do was give a straight answer.

Oh well.

Oh the irony!

You accuse me of deflecting and then you deflect with what you believe is an ad hominem about Jake.

For a Congressman that behavior was extreme and uncalled for. All that was needed was a simple civil question asking the Professor as to how he would characterize the language in the email. Instead we see a tirade of leading questions that can best be classified as "hostile". The Professor was not accused of any crime but he was being mistreated by the Congressman as if he had.

So there is no way to justify this uncouth display of bad manners. If this makes it into the MSM moderate voters will have yet another reason to reconsider their support for the GOP in November.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Trey Gowdy is amazing..

 

[TemplarKormac]

Strange how there is not a single mention of this on FoxNews, MSNBC or CNN.

It is all over the extreme rightwing blogosphere but none of the MSM outlets are carrying this shameful theater of the absurd. Perhaps that is just as well because if they did the opinion of the extreme right and the GOP would only sink even further amongst the center moderates like myself.

Nice deflection, but no.

Your crystal ball is busted Deri. And what does it matter if the media doesn't report this stuff? People make the mistake of thinking they are credible if they get talked about by the media. Anywho, that was a nice JakeStarkey impression.

Isn't it strange that when someone like you disagrees with an opinion or behavior, it gets dismissed as 'extreme?' Isn't it strange that people don't care about something bad until it happens to them? All Tiefer had to do was give a straight answer.

Oh well.

Oh the irony!

You accuse me of deflecting and then you deflect with what you believe is an ad hominem about Jake.

For a Congressman that behavior was extreme and uncalled for. All that was needed was a simple civil question asking the Professor as to how he would characterize the language in the email. Instead we see a tirade of leading questions that can best be classified as "hostile". The Professor was not accused of any crime but he was being mistreated by the Congressman as if he had.

So there is no way to justify this uncouth display of bad manners. If this makes it into the MSM moderate voters will have yet another reason to reconsider their support for the GOP in November.

Yeah, that's what happens when you only read one half of my post.

And what if he were a Democrat grilling a Republican in such a fashion? I love how folks like you suddenly know how a Congressman should do his job when there's a poor, oh-so-helpless Democrat being melted into his chair.

All he wanted was a yes or no answer. Not a synopsis. I would get hostile too if someone couldn't answer with a yes or no, to a yes or no question. Manners? Really? You must be joking. Where were the 'manners' when the IRS chose to single out conservative groups? Where were the manners when Lois Lerner chose to refer to conservatives as 'assholes', 'crazies' and 'terrorists?' Where were the manners during the government shutdown last year, when Democrats referred to Republicans as 'arsonists?'

Please. Your argument is nothing but a red herring.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Strange how there is not a single mention of this on FoxNews, MSNBC or CNN.

It is all over the extreme rightwing blogosphere but none of the MSM outlets are carrying this shameful theater of the absurd. Perhaps that is just as well because if they did the opinion of the extreme right and the GOP would only sink even further amongst the center moderates like myself.

Nice deflection, but no.

Your crystal ball is busted Deri. And what does it matter if the media doesn't report this stuff? People make the mistake of thinking they are credible if they get talked about by the media. Anywho, that was a nice JakeStarkey impression.

Isn't it strange that when someone like you disagrees with an opinion or behavior, it gets dismissed as 'extreme?' Isn't it strange that people don't care about something bad until it happens to them? All Tiefer had to do was give a straight answer.

Oh well.

Oh the irony!

You accuse me of deflecting and then you deflect with what you believe is an ad hominem about Jake.

For a Congressman that behavior was extreme and uncalled for. All that was needed was a simple civil question asking the Professor as to how he would characterize the language in the email. Instead we see a tirade of leading questions that can best be classified as "hostile". The Professor was not accused of any crime but he was being mistreated by the Congressman as if he had.

So there is no way to justify this uncouth display of bad manners. If this makes it into the MSM moderate voters will have yet another reason to reconsider their support for the GOP in November.

True.

This is nothing more than bread and circuses for the rightwing base, solely to appease their inane hatred of the president.

That those on the right would perceive the unwarranted abuse of a witness testifying in good faith as some sort of 'victory' is both sad and telling.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nice deflection, but no.

Your crystal ball is busted Deri. And what does it matter if the media doesn't report this stuff? People make the mistake of thinking they are credible if they get talked about by the media. Anywho, that was a nice JakeStarkey impression.

Isn't it strange that when someone like you disagrees with an opinion or behavior, it gets dismissed as 'extreme?' Isn't it strange that people don't care about something bad until it happens to them? All Tiefer had to do was give a straight answer.

Oh well.

Oh the irony!

You accuse me of deflecting and then you deflect with what you believe is an ad hominem about Jake.

For a Congressman that behavior was extreme and uncalled for. All that was needed was a simple civil question asking the Professor as to how he would characterize the language in the email. Instead we see a tirade of leading questions that can best be classified as "hostile". The Professor was not accused of any crime but he was being mistreated by the Congressman as if he had.

So there is no way to justify this uncouth display of bad manners. If this makes it into the MSM moderate voters will have yet another reason to reconsider their support for the GOP in November.

True.

This is nothing more than bread and circuses for the rightwing base, solely to appease their inane hatred of the president.

That those on the right would perceive the unwarranted abuse of a witness testifying in good faith as some sort of 'victory' is both sad and telling.

So, how do you perceive the abuse of conservative 401(c)(3) groups?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Anywho, as Derideo is so fond of mentioning manners and decorum by elected officials, here a big show of manners by Nancy Pelosi towards Republican Representative Tim Marino during his speech on the border bill:

Rep Tom Marino Border Bill Minority Leader Pelosi | Video | C-SPAN.org

 

[Derideo_Te]

Nice deflection, but no.

Your crystal ball is busted Deri. And what does it matter if the media doesn't report this stuff? People make the mistake of thinking they are credible if they get talked about by the media. Anywho, that was a nice JakeStarkey impression.

Isn't it strange that when someone like you disagrees with an opinion or behavior, it gets dismissed as 'extreme?' Isn't it strange that people don't care about something bad until it happens to them? All Tiefer had to do was give a straight answer.

Oh well.

Oh the irony!

You accuse me of deflecting and then you deflect with what you believe is an ad hominem about Jake.

For a Congressman that behavior was extreme and uncalled for. All that was needed was a simple civil question asking the Professor as to how he would characterize the language in the email. Instead we see a tirade of leading questions that can best be classified as "hostile". The Professor was not accused of any crime but he was being mistreated by the Congressman as if he had.

So there is no way to justify this uncouth display of bad manners. If this makes it into the MSM moderate voters will have yet another reason to reconsider their support for the GOP in November.

Yeah, that's what happens when you only read one half of my post.

And what if he were a Democrat grilling a Republican in such a fashion? I love how folks like you suddenly know how a Congressman should do his job when there's a poor, oh-so-helpless Democrat being melted into his chair.

All he wanted was a yes or no answer. Not a synopsis. I would get hostile too if someone couldn't answer with a yes or no, to a yes or no question. Manners? Really? You must be joking. Where were the 'manners' when the IRS chose to single out conservative groups? Where were the manners when Lois Lerner chose to refer to conservatives as 'assholes', 'crazies' and 'terrorists?' Where were the manners during the government shutdown last year, when Democrats referred to Republicans as 'arsonists?'

Please. Your argument is nothing but a red herring.

Your comprehension of what constitutes a red herring leaves a lot to be desired.

The topic in your OP is the unprofessional treatment of a respected member of the public by an extreme rightwing Congressman. The political fallout (since this is the Politics forum) is a legitimate direction to take based upon how that appalling tirade will be perceived by moderate voters.

If you don't want to deal with the political consequences ask one of the mods to move your thread to Current Affairs or General Discussion instead. But you chose this forum so politics are most definitely on the table. As CK mentioned in the Rules for this forum "choose wisely" when picking titles and OPs.