Earlier today in a comment I cited Hugh Hewitt's interview of Senator Ron Johnson as an example of how the Senate works--or doesn't work. I haven't been able to find an audio that I can embed, so I'll just provide the link to the 10 minute interview--below.
Johnson didn't know what hit him. I think he was expecting a softball interview, maybe a pat on the back from Hewitt, who's usually supportive of mainstream politicians. Instead, Johnson was confronted by an angry Hewitt who demanded answers and ended up calling out Johnson, Lindsey Graham, and others to apologize to the American people for wasting four years without seriously trying to get to the bottom of a coup attempt against the President of the United States. When Trump was stabbed in the back by AG Jeff Sessions, the GOP controlled Senate--led by Chuck Grassley--flat out stonewalled Trump.
Now it's apparently Romney refusing to vote for subpoenas for Comey and Brennan. Johnson wouldn't name names and, when Hewitt suggested that he hold a public committee vote so the nation would know who the stonewaller is, Johnson was just dumbfounded.
The truth, of course, is worse than the flabbiness that Hewitt indicts. The truth is that the GOPe, both in the Senate but perhaps most importantly in the House leadership while the GOP still had control, were actively seeking to subvert Trump. Paul Ryan above all.
this blog develops the idea that a theory of man in history can be worked out around the theme that man's self expression in culture and society is motivated by the desire to find meaning in man's existence. i proceed by summarizing seminal works that provide insights into the dynamics of this process, with the view that the culmination of this exploration was reached with god's self revelation in jesus. i'll hopefully also explore the developments that followed this event.
Wednesday, August 12, 2020
Depressing: Hugh Hewitt Dresses Down Senator Ron Johnson
Posted by mark wauck at 8:28 PM
Labels: Russia Hoax, Senate
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Haven’t listened to Hewitt for years. Did he call these Senators down before when the rest of us knew the whole thing was a coup … or is this something new from Hewitt as well?ReplyDelete
LOL! I don't know. I gave up on him years ago, too. The link was emailed to me.Delete
Last comment should have said “Senators and Representatives”...ReplyDelete
I sent the link. There were further developments as Hugh Hewitt noticed that Johnson already has been voted authority by the committee to subpoena Comey and Brennan, so he was probably just lying about Romney being an obstacle. Confronted by Politico (that noted pro-GOP source), Johnson's staff said that he misunderstood the discussion and wants Comey to come testify without the need for a subpoena.ReplyDelete
His spokesman said that "his patience is wearing thin." What a lying bastard.
Having worked on the Senate staff many years ago, Hewitt probably understood he was being lied to.Delete
Each Republican senator on the Intelligence committee should be asked what he knows about committee staff member James Wolfe getting a slap on the wrist for leaking the FISA warrant to a journalist, who was his former lover.ReplyDelete
It's a delicate question of balance of powers among the branches, but it seems that something has to be done about it because these problems do NOT get addressed in elections.Delete
To bad the Founders didn't include something in the Constitution ensuring the existence of a group of independent "watchers" to challenge the elites/ politicians/bureaucrats for explanations, and who would make sure voters are reminded of the explanations at the appropriate time. I don't know, maybe they could have given it a catchy name like "a free press" or something; but I'm sure they were to busy thinking up racists stuff like the 3/5's clause to dream up something that wild and original.Delete
There is no salvation in written constitutions (cf. de Maistre). That just leads to the old, old questions: who will watch the watchers, who will guard the guardians, who will spy on the spies?Delete
The Founding Fathers understood that our republic and its constitutional order were designed for a virtuous people. The 3/5 clause showed that we weren't so terribly virtuous and Leftism is antithetical to the very concept of virtue.
Under oath, no less. There are multiple fingers in the pie of sedition, methinksDelete
I haven't listened to mushy Hugh for years, but he did have a bee in his bonnet in that clip, and Johnson was flummoxed. It's amazing that even ol' go-along-to-get-along Hugh could conjure the fire.ReplyDelete
Hugh's voice is noticeably different from when I last heard him. I hope he's okay. He didn't sound well.
Yeah, I was amazed at how old he sounds. At least I put it down to age.Delete
I listen to HH; I guess mainly because he talks to people. I heard the interview. It was selective outrage. At this point, the Senate isn't going to tell us anything we don't know.ReplyDelete
A note, last week, he interviewed Marco Rubio. Not one question about the collusion of the SSCI with the Democrats and the FBI/CIA/Media. Not one. Now that would have been something.
Good point about Rubio, Gray.Delete
In defense of HH, he's a smart lawyer and does do some good interviews. He had a very good interview with Devin Nunes very early on, although a later interview showed a lack of understanding of FISA.
Pity is there are another 40 odd or more Republican senators just like him, excepting, to some degree: Paul, Kennedy, Hawley, Cotton & Cruz.ReplyDelete
There is a spirit in America that believes in individualism, responsible government, freedom, all married to a deep suspicion of the metastatic state. This spirit has nothing whatsoever to do with the Republican Party, which hardly even exists as an entity.
Trey Parker of South Park fame when asked about his political views said something like, "I hate the Republicans, but I really, really hate the Democrats."
I am in his boat.
Democrats are bat@#it crazy. Sad thing is that elected Republicans just don't function as a countervailing force, even to crazy.
I think the spirit of the Republican party is the spirit of neighborhood get-alongism writ large. It's largely defenseless against radical philosophies, which it doesn't understand and doesn't believe others are serious about.Delete
That's an excellent point. Can it be expanded to Conservatism in general having an inability to confront, at least today, the techniques of the left?ReplyDelete
Yes. Our founding has to be understood in the context of the attempts to come to a stable "system" of government in society in the wake of the Wars of Religion--the "Reformation" having thrown it all up for grabs. That's what the philosophical background of Hobbes, Locke, and the rest is mostly about. But the idea of a "social contract" is basically grounded in the Reformation idea of private judgment, which has degenerated into the typical attitude of 'everyone is entitled to their own opinion.' Once you get to that point you're defenseless against those who say, 'my opinion is that I should enforce my will on you.'Delete
That's the fundamental dilemma that conservatives like Deneen try to address.
Patrick Deneen? Deneen Borelli?Delete
I would say, the government should not do but it should be up to the citizens to clean the mess up made by the elites. In Fort Collins, BLM idiots tried to move in and were quickly overwhelmed by the local citizens. All the BLM morons could do was whine. They bark loud but when faced by determined people they fold up like a newspaper.Delete
My grandfather told me never to fight back against my sister. That is the luxurious attitude of a stable & peaceful society - the masculine don't oppose the feminine. We have allowed (encouraged, promoted) the passive-aggressive feminazi crowd to feminize our institutions. Especially the schools. We have slowly prepared ourselves as a societ for a quick death.Delete
Our last gasp of breath was to reach out to Trump to save us from ourselves. Bt as we can see by the Barr/Durham charade, we don't really have the will to even try to get out of bed anymore.
In fairness, women aren't all opposed to the masculine, although a distressing proportion seem uncomprehending of what's involved. There does seem to be a combination of beta males and angry women who have distorted our politics in the direction of socialism.
"understood in the context, of the attempts to come to a stable "system" of government, in society in the wake of the Wars of Religion."Delete
Quite so, and, given the historical circumstances, the Framers' work did rather well for centuries, compared to the convulsions other societies have suffered.
They can hardly be blamed, for failing to foresee the explosion of technology of instant mass commo (esp. Social Media), which has effectively drawn the demons out of millions of *Harpies*.
As it was put by the guy who created the Retweet button, “We might have just handed a 4-year-old a loaded weapon.”
To be clear, I'm not blaming them. As commenter N. S. Palmer recently pointed out, much of the worst damage to our constitutional order has been done by fairly recent amendments, all dating back to the Progressive era at the earliest.Delete
Mark, I know we will not see eye to eye on this since I follow in the Reformed tradition (no scare quotes), but, with respect, your comment leaves out the rather important corresponding historical development known as the Renaissance, which of course led to the "Enlightenment."Delete
Societal convulsions, and all that entails, were going to happen anyway; the Reformation provided a biblical and moral landing for those who could no longer tolerate Roman rule.
Some call it "private judgment;" but anyone with a properly Reformed worldview calls it Sola Scriptura, which is fundamentally NOT private judgment.
To be sure, the tyranny of the individual has prevailed; this is more of an atheistic Enlightenment development than Reformed. And we have passed straight through "every man did what was right in his own eyes" to stand at the precipice of Orwell's nightmare.
"Societal convulsions, and all that entails, were going to happen anyway"Delete
All that had been happening, and would continue to happen, from long before the "Renaissance." My comment doesn't leave that out--I recommend my extensive pre-Russia Hoax posting. The "Renaissance" and "Enlightenment" are very much contributing factors to our current crisis, driven by determined anti-intellectualism and ideologically driven ignorance of history. The "Protestant Revolt" is very much a part of that deconstruction of our Western heritage. Sola scriptura is fundamentally about private judgment because at its heart it rejects history in favor of a text--very much like Islam.
What the Protestant Revolt--rightly characterized by a Lutheran, Eric Voegelin, as the inbreaking of Gnosticism into the social institutions of the West--embodied was a rejection of Reason and exaltation of the Will. We see today the results. The rejection of Reason led directly to the atheism you deplore. Pure philosophical positions inevitably play out to their logical consequences, as we see today. Invocation of The Book--whether you call it Bible or Quran--doesn't change that equation. The Protestant Revolt did NOT provide a stable moal landing because it rests on a rejection of Reason and of natural law.
The Victory of Reason
Again, I recommend a reading of my entire blog starting from the beginning. If that sounds burdensome, understand that I spent years on that, addressing many of the issues you raise.
Having said all that, for anyone who would accuse me of reflexive acceptance of "Roman Rule" and a triumphalist reading of history, again, please read my earlier postings.Delete
The GOP may be (or may have been) the nice guy party...at least when compared to the Democrat/Alinsky Party.ReplyDelete
But maybe not so much. The party of W Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld...as well as the party of McCain, Romney, Burr and Rubio has sold us out to the Military Industrial Complex and may be just as corrupt as Joe and Hunter. They are all (with only a few exceptions) beholden to their financial backers who are rarely imbued with any spirit of neighborhood get-alongism writ large.
This subject is way larger than a single comment, but in a few words, my feeling is that if there is one Constitutional institution which has lost its way, its Congress. Congress doesn't seem to be able to solve problems with prophylactic legislation anymore...it seems largely paralyzed. It can't even 'fact find', as in conducting an honest and transparent search for the facts...the truth. And when it does legislate, it delegates the tough issues of execution to the Executive and, increasingly the Administrative State, which has accrued so much power to itself that it has a new name: the Deep State.
And why does Congress do this? Because the members are no longer focused primarily on doing the right thing for the nation...they have degenerated into little pockets of self-interest.
Does anybody believe that Nancy Pelosi, perhaps the wealthiest member of either house, and the Leader of the People's House, is actually acting in the best interests of the entire Nation?
"Little pockets of self interest" that are beholden to special interests. We have exactly the type of legislature that you'd expect when it's basically up for sale but has to maintain a charade of representing the voting public.Delete
The other big problem is the disengagement of so much of the population. Deneen argues that the Framers understood that this would be the case and welcomed it because they figured that over time it would lead to de facto government by a permanent ruling elite. An oligarchy.
Deneen's argument doesn't make a lot of sense when you consider how much more restricted the franchise was in the framers' day.Delete
Of course they expected the elite to govern; but they did not set up a "permanent" elite. They explicitly eschewed hereditary power structures - this could not be plainer in their writings.
In my view the disengagement is partially a function of the expanded franchise. 'Regular folk' just ain't that interested if (a) it doesn't affect their daily lives and/or (b) they believe their choices to be ineffectual.
It was Van Buren's New York Democrats who first worked to expand the franchise in order to uproot the Federalists and secure their hold on power - funny how even the Democrats' origins are those of a party in search of an electorate.
"it would lead to de facto government by a permanent ruling elite. An oligarchy."Delete
In this case, it figures to be a particularly deranged oligarchy.
And, if I recall Aristotle correctly, the risk of that is, that the oligarchy would develop the means to so solidify its power, as to enable a new George III to outmaneuver his *relatively few* effective rivals.
So, a Directory gets overthrown by a trio of Consuls, which quickly is outmaneuvered by Bonaparte.
Even if this DS crowd isn't swiftly outmaneuvered by a Bonaparte, the common good is doomed.
Deneen's arguments make a lot of sense.
The Federalists who controlled the Constitutional Convention--in essence, a coup--set up a strong federal government with a powerful executive, with a general pretty much baked in as the first president. Enough bones were tossed to the anti-Federalists--mostly in the form of a Bill of Rights--to get the constitution ratified. However, a judiciary was set up under the control of the Federalists to ensure that the new republic would be steered along Federalist lines. That held good as long as Marshall was chief justice (1835). The restricted franchise was another part of the scheme. The idea was that the strong federal government would attract talented elites from the states and state governments would decline in influence.
Seems to have worked.
I must also add that Mitt Romney, if he is the Senator blocking subpoenas, is a despicable person. Well, he is despicable wher or not he is the one.ReplyDelete
Please explain how this possessor of a higher conscience, who found Trump guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor, can block a subpoena seeking to explain to the American people what has gone on at the FBI and CIA over the last four (+) years...
There is something very creepy about Mitt Romney.
I agree that HH is a loser, but then again I am always gleeful when someone dresses down a lying politician.ReplyDelete
I have long agreed with Mark's theory that Willard and Paul Ryan know, or assume, that this spying on Republican presidential campaigns didn't begin in the 2016 cycle. One or both of them must have said something pretty embarrassing while on the phone in 2011-2012 they don't want coming out. I don't like to throw unsubstantiated rumors from completely out of nowhere, but given Romney's tendency to throw out absurd Russia allegations... perhaps he had/has a mistress. Romney is an exceptionally virile and attractive man whose wife has been invalided by MS for almost 30 years now and would not be able to fulfill the needs a mormon wife usually fulfills exclusively...ReplyDelete
Mistress or otherwise, I am quite confident he has some skeletons in them thar closet.Delete
More likely, I find Sundance's recent pontificating of note. His contention is that there may be a specific cabal of spying going back well before Trump, whose objective was dirt or insider intel for the purpose of financial gain - the oldest reason there is. That Trump and cronies were caught up in it and then he was subsequently elected, was merely the cap that caused them to need to scramble to put a lid on it. Russiagate was only a distraction.
As hair-brained as it sounds, virtually nothing would surprise me anymore. It could theoretically explain everything from the ousted CEO with hot russian spy mistress to Epstein covers to Roberts doing contortions on pivotal cases.
I haven't listened to HH in years. He always seems a day late to the party--and squabbling now about what the Senate should've done a couple years ago is silly.ReplyDelete
To me, the past is under the bridge. The question is, "What are you going to do about it NOW?"
Complaining, bitching, pointing fingers solves nothing--it's grandstanding as entertainment. It's not leadership, it's not governing.
HH should be asking what is to be done now, and then hold their feet to the fire.
As I understood it, he was expressing frustration that the inaction of the Senate was endangering GOP electoral chances. Whether that argument holds water is another matter, but the frustration is understandable. As I mentioned in another comment, in fairness to HH, he was an early supporter of Nunes' efforts.Delete
I'd agree that the first two years of the Trump administration were wasted by the GOP, which did endanger electoral results in 2018--losing control of the House.Delete
By my count Mitt Romney cannot alone block subpoena power. Committee membership is 8 Republicans, 6 Democrats. So there is another rat.ReplyDelete
"if this DS crowd isn't swiftly outmaneuvered"ReplyDelete
Hard to get through but effective solutions imo:
1)Term Limits 12 years that is all in any branch of federal elected governance.
3) Restructure and cleanse the post ww2 military intelligence jumbo shrimp....
4- scatter the agencies into the heartland nationwide to spread them out and stop the echo chamberDelete
5- forbid the Leviathan from making policy beyond what is actually in the law passed
6- Congress cretins who wrote the legislation must certify, under oath, that every discrete "3-A-138-part (b)iii" section was written by whose specific hand/s.
I have thought this before, but unless they place them in fields of corn they will still land in blue urban centers.
O/T but similar, as amusing as I find the desperate flight from the cities, it irritates me that these idiots will infest red districts with their disastrous voting habits.
I listened to the video.ReplyDelete
Senate only works 3 days. Wow.
Hugh Hewitt seems to be very eGOP, and for him to be this truthful is interesting on the timing.
I have been surprised at how the Senate, both parties, have sided and abetted this coup, and the cover up. So many GOP say one thing to get through the primary, and act differently after elected.