It's like watching a really bad performance review. As someone who's conducted those kinds of reviews, I recognize what Murray is doing. "You were required to complete this goal. Where is …
It's like watching a really bad performance review. As someone who's conducted those kinds of reviews, I recognize what Murray is doing. "You were required to complete this goal. Where is the work product?"
"I don't have it."
"You know that you were required to have it, right?"
"I understand."
"You understand, but and..."
"I can't just make things up."
This is how these clowns should be dealt with. These are real jobs they hold. They have real, statutory requirements. These are actually laws with which they must comply. They are not Fox News talking heads. They are not podcasters.
Instead of going off on these people about their moral failings -- as obvious as they are and as tempting as that is -- it's better to treat them as the bureaucrats and government functionaries that they actually are. There is a budget process. Their jobs require them to participate in it by providing certain documents with certain types of information by certain dates.
Murray's question is exactly right. "How are we supposed to do our work if you don't turn this stuff in?" Patel, of course, doesn't have an answer.
Fox News can't spin that exchange. It's factual. It's based in law. It's Patel's job and he's not doing it. What IS the Congress supposed to do? Zero out the funding for the FBI because Kash Patel can't administer his department competently?
Let Jared Moskowitz do his stand up routine in whatever committees he's on. Let him make fun of James Comer and Jim Jordan. It doesn't do any good and Fox News can spin it. I'd rather see people like Patty Murray take guys like Kash Patel apart like she did there. He's a mid-level government functionary who's not doing his job. The American people need to see that.
His oath was devised by congress, is not in the constitution, unlike the oath by the Pres.. Congress can penalize him, just as they did in the Civil War when secessionists violated their oaths. They can change the structure of any agency under the pres given all appointees take that same Congress-devised oath.
They have to count their votes, have their ducks in a row, before acting however.
49-49 in the Senate on tariffs a week or so ago made clear T. has no mandate. More Repubs will be jumping ship as they see more ridiculous and awful things.
Just this past week, more jumped. Three new Repubs joined with the anti-tariff people to oppose the Gulf of Mexico nonsense that T. used as an excuse to deny APnews.com admission to journalist briefings. (The AP has state-by-state maps of electoral results so you can pick out the areas where jumps will be easiest. How dare they do that! act like they understand geography? )
Florida voted for T, but, But, BUT, the big circles for two Tampa-area districts on the AP map were barely red. They were, thus, barely for T, his majority in those two not huge, so they will be swingable?
Of those deeply red in FL last election, might they switch, if too many are denied insurance money, denied FEMA money for Florida's risk of repeated hurricane damage? Why doesn't T stand up for them.
He's like the incompetent guy at the casino in the movie Casino, who only gets hired and kept on because he is a political patronage hire. He knows they can't fire him, so he just answers politely, with no intention of responding to the criticism. Just get through the hearing and then ignore everything they said. The obvious disdain these characters have for any authority that isn't Donald Trump is palpable. They believe they can do anything they want, and as long as Trump isn't mad at them, they can get away with it.
(1) They THINK that they're safe. However, they wrapped a rope around their necks, saved on tape, so of record, as they violate oaths to resist DOMESTIC risks to the constitution, not just foreign. (2) We promised ourselves life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness In the Constitution [CORRECTION: In the Declaration of Independence]. Is happiness increased when relatives are deported without the promised trial, trial owed as even noncitizens have some rights? (3) It was not that long ago when spouses would automatically became citizens, upon marriage, to a citizen. If anybody fears sham marriages, the fearful could have forbidden just that subset. But they didn't, did they? They over-reached. (That a child with cancer was deported with his mother? even though the father was a citizen? A very poor excuse: it was legal as the mother was not a citizen. Who changed the law? Why not automatically a citizen, clearly not in a sham marriage, given she gave birth to the citizen's child?)
"In the Constitution, we are promised life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Actually, we're not. That is in the Declaration of Independence, a document with zero legal weight, not the Constitution. The Constitution promises us nothing about life or happiness - only some level of fairness. Keep in mind that the American Revolution was at its heart, a tax revolt. All that high-mindedness in the Declaration was cover for our rich guys not wanting to send tax money to London, and it never made it into the Constitution. It was our justification for treason against our King. I wasn't there in 1776, but I guess that was a pretty big deal back then, requiring at least a noble explanation.
Funny how once we won our freedom, none of that "All men (women? black people?) are created equal..." stuff fully made it into our laws?
You are right "Declaration of Independence", it's my week to be corrected. Still, whether Declaration or Constitution, it's an important historic precedent
I didn't quite see it that way. Kash Patel, I think, fancies himself as one of the Masters of the Universe. He doesn't have to follow rules or laws. He's got a Presidential pardon waiting for him, no matter what he does. Screw you, Senator. You're not the boss of me.
But then he runs into Patty Murray who asks, "Do you think you can just not follow the law?"
And he says, "I'm following the law."
And then she points out that he isn't and asks when he's going to start and he says he's waiting on his underlings, whom he clearly isn't managing effectively. He really was, in this exchange, reduced to a minor government functionary tasked with specific administrative duties which he didn't perform. THAT'S what he is. A bureaucrat, subject to others and to the laws, not a Master of the Universe at all.
That's what I want to see. I want to see demonstrated that these people are incapable or unwilling to perform even the most basic functions of their jobs. They can go on Fox News and bray about the weaponization of government all they want. They still have to submit their budget recommendations on time.
Excellent points. Being head of the FBI means you're responsible for lots of mundane administrative tasks. It'sca shame that good ol' Kash thought it was just playing thugs and political rivals ( as opposed to cops and robbers.)
And they're all like that. Kristi Noem used to be an executive, Governor of North Dakota. She could call the shots and didn't really have to answer to anyone but the voters and the voters of North Dakota would vote for a box of cornflakes if it had an R stamped on it, so she could run around, shooting her dogs and whatever else she was doing and no one said boo.
Now she's just another government functionary. She's got a boss. She has to manage a budget. She gets hauled in front of committees and has to answer questions. Her staff lets her down. They make her look foolish in public, same as Kash Patel.
Congress needs to make those jobs a lot less fun for them. It's not all cosplay. It's not all getting all tarted up and posing in front of a bunch of prisoners. The job involves actual work. Congress needs to shine a light on the fact that she -- and the rest of them -- aren't doing it.
Apropos of nothing in Morning Shots this morning, I was heartened by this exchange between Senator Patty Murray and Kash Patel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8CBVTLAdoA
It's like watching a really bad performance review. As someone who's conducted those kinds of reviews, I recognize what Murray is doing. "You were required to complete this goal. Where is the work product?"
"I don't have it."
"You know that you were required to have it, right?"
"I understand."
"You understand, but and..."
"I can't just make things up."
This is how these clowns should be dealt with. These are real jobs they hold. They have real, statutory requirements. These are actually laws with which they must comply. They are not Fox News talking heads. They are not podcasters.
Instead of going off on these people about their moral failings -- as obvious as they are and as tempting as that is -- it's better to treat them as the bureaucrats and government functionaries that they actually are. There is a budget process. Their jobs require them to participate in it by providing certain documents with certain types of information by certain dates.
Murray's question is exactly right. "How are we supposed to do our work if you don't turn this stuff in?" Patel, of course, doesn't have an answer.
Fox News can't spin that exchange. It's factual. It's based in law. It's Patel's job and he's not doing it. What IS the Congress supposed to do? Zero out the funding for the FBI because Kash Patel can't administer his department competently?
Let Jared Moskowitz do his stand up routine in whatever committees he's on. Let him make fun of James Comer and Jim Jordan. It doesn't do any good and Fox News can spin it. I'd rather see people like Patty Murray take guys like Kash Patel apart like she did there. He's a mid-level government functionary who's not doing his job. The American people need to see that.
I mean, none of them are doing their jobs. Most won’t ever get questioned, let alone asked to show their work.
His oath was devised by congress, is not in the constitution, unlike the oath by the Pres.. Congress can penalize him, just as they did in the Civil War when secessionists violated their oaths. They can change the structure of any agency under the pres given all appointees take that same Congress-devised oath.
They have to count their votes, have their ducks in a row, before acting however.
49-49 in the Senate on tariffs a week or so ago made clear T. has no mandate. More Repubs will be jumping ship as they see more ridiculous and awful things.
Just this past week, more jumped. Three new Repubs joined with the anti-tariff people to oppose the Gulf of Mexico nonsense that T. used as an excuse to deny APnews.com admission to journalist briefings. (The AP has state-by-state maps of electoral results so you can pick out the areas where jumps will be easiest. How dare they do that! act like they understand geography? )
Florida voted for T, but, But, BUT, the big circles for two Tampa-area districts on the AP map were barely red. They were, thus, barely for T, his majority in those two not huge, so they will be swingable?
Of those deeply red in FL last election, might they switch, if too many are denied insurance money, denied FEMA money for Florida's risk of repeated hurricane damage? Why doesn't T stand up for them.
He's like the incompetent guy at the casino in the movie Casino, who only gets hired and kept on because he is a political patronage hire. He knows they can't fire him, so he just answers politely, with no intention of responding to the criticism. Just get through the hearing and then ignore everything they said. The obvious disdain these characters have for any authority that isn't Donald Trump is palpable. They believe they can do anything they want, and as long as Trump isn't mad at them, they can get away with it.
(1) They THINK that they're safe. However, they wrapped a rope around their necks, saved on tape, so of record, as they violate oaths to resist DOMESTIC risks to the constitution, not just foreign. (2) We promised ourselves life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness In the Constitution [CORRECTION: In the Declaration of Independence]. Is happiness increased when relatives are deported without the promised trial, trial owed as even noncitizens have some rights? (3) It was not that long ago when spouses would automatically became citizens, upon marriage, to a citizen. If anybody fears sham marriages, the fearful could have forbidden just that subset. But they didn't, did they? They over-reached. (That a child with cancer was deported with his mother? even though the father was a citizen? A very poor excuse: it was legal as the mother was not a citizen. Who changed the law? Why not automatically a citizen, clearly not in a sham marriage, given she gave birth to the citizen's child?)
"In the Constitution, we are promised life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Actually, we're not. That is in the Declaration of Independence, a document with zero legal weight, not the Constitution. The Constitution promises us nothing about life or happiness - only some level of fairness. Keep in mind that the American Revolution was at its heart, a tax revolt. All that high-mindedness in the Declaration was cover for our rich guys not wanting to send tax money to London, and it never made it into the Constitution. It was our justification for treason against our King. I wasn't there in 1776, but I guess that was a pretty big deal back then, requiring at least a noble explanation.
Funny how once we won our freedom, none of that "All men (women? black people?) are created equal..." stuff fully made it into our laws?
You are right "Declaration of Independence", it's my week to be corrected. Still, whether Declaration or Constitution, it's an important historic precedent
I didn't quite see it that way. Kash Patel, I think, fancies himself as one of the Masters of the Universe. He doesn't have to follow rules or laws. He's got a Presidential pardon waiting for him, no matter what he does. Screw you, Senator. You're not the boss of me.
But then he runs into Patty Murray who asks, "Do you think you can just not follow the law?"
And he says, "I'm following the law."
And then she points out that he isn't and asks when he's going to start and he says he's waiting on his underlings, whom he clearly isn't managing effectively. He really was, in this exchange, reduced to a minor government functionary tasked with specific administrative duties which he didn't perform. THAT'S what he is. A bureaucrat, subject to others and to the laws, not a Master of the Universe at all.
That's what I want to see. I want to see demonstrated that these people are incapable or unwilling to perform even the most basic functions of their jobs. They can go on Fox News and bray about the weaponization of government all they want. They still have to submit their budget recommendations on time.
Excellent points. Being head of the FBI means you're responsible for lots of mundane administrative tasks. It'sca shame that good ol' Kash thought it was just playing thugs and political rivals ( as opposed to cops and robbers.)
Right!
And they're all like that. Kristi Noem used to be an executive, Governor of North Dakota. She could call the shots and didn't really have to answer to anyone but the voters and the voters of North Dakota would vote for a box of cornflakes if it had an R stamped on it, so she could run around, shooting her dogs and whatever else she was doing and no one said boo.
Now she's just another government functionary. She's got a boss. She has to manage a budget. She gets hauled in front of committees and has to answer questions. Her staff lets her down. They make her look foolish in public, same as Kash Patel.
Congress needs to make those jobs a lot less fun for them. It's not all cosplay. It's not all getting all tarted up and posing in front of a bunch of prisoners. The job involves actual work. Congress needs to shine a light on the fact that she -- and the rest of them -- aren't doing it.