Hearings Without Answers Betray Our Self-Government
“The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function.”—Woodrow Wilson, Congressional Government (1885), later 28th president of the United States
______________________________________________________________
Last Thursday afternoon I again got engrossed in watching video of Congressional committee hearings. Again, they were infuriating.
Far too many witnesses before Congress will not answer the questions asked. That’s because they take us for fools, disrespect us, and Congress as our representatives. It’s disregard for self-government.
When I began cross-examining witnesses in court in 1984 things were different. Asked a question that called for a yes or no answer government witnesses most often would answer “yes” or “no.”
Good judges would, when necessary, admonish witnesses that: “the question can be answered yes or no; please do so.” .
It's no small matter. Such questions instruct witnesses in the larger subject of the questioning and direct witnesses to provide narrow and plain facts clearly, thus importantly informing judges and juries.
John Wigmore, author of the evidence book I read in law school--and for almost three decades thereafter--said in 1904 that cross-examination was, “. . . beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.” That’s why courtroom and Congressional witnesses squirm and sweat avoiding straight answers to straight questions.
Nobody in the Congressional hearings available online appears to enforce the old rule that a yes or no question merits a “yes or no” answer.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is the reigning champion of diverting the American public from getting straight answers. He appears to attentively study Vietnam-era Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara’s rule that one “Never answer the question that is asked of you. Answer the question that you wish had been asked of you . . . It’s a very good rule.”
Hegseth immediately digresses into maundering, stalling, justification, backstory, campaign propaganda, departmental and self-promotion among other diversionary tactics. Straight answers from Hegseth are not forthcoming on matters of importance.
Thus, we and Congress are deprived of information needed to make decisions about an ongoing, unconstitutional war raging in the midst of midterm elections.
Similarly, a sadly laughable episode occurred in July, when then nominee to be Director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton (a former United States Attorney) replied to questions from a fairly competent questioner: Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff.
Clayton first flatly refused to answer a handful of painfully simple questions calling for “yes” or “no” answers. He then shifted to playing dumb and stalling.
Clayton was subsequently confirmed and sworn in as Director of National Intelligence.
Hegseth and Clayton thus deprived us and our elected representatives of needed information.
Let there be absolutely no doubt about this; both parties are equally guilty in these charades. They have been going on as long as I remember.
Yet witnesses are almost never held in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions.
Perhaps there is some back-scratching, log-rolling, bi-partisan agreement in Congress to let each party collect video favorable to members for local news. And we, the voters, have some role in allowing that. Shame on all of us.
Committee hearings are not just for Congress. Congress is there for our information, representation and the good of our republic.
If we are not to be insulted and played for suckers, as we often are by this opera bouffe, Congress needs to hear that blatant obfuscation is unacceptable. Congress has the power to cite witnesses for contempt when they persistently refuse to answer pertinent questions, and should start doing so.
In his 1885 book, Woodrow Wilson wrote, “It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents.”
Congress owes us the respect of doing its job.
Andrew Warren is a (re)tired criminal defense lawyer and erstwhile college professor. Despite his better judgement, he writes carefully crafted opinion pieces for the Silver City Daily Press and the Deming Headlight every other week. He has a Master's Degree in American History and Government and teaches such classes for the Western Institute of Life Long Learning, also in Silver City. Given the current state of discourse, he prefers reading over political dialogue. He can be reached at alwarrenesq@msn.com.