Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., is catching heat for reprimanding Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., during her sideshow performance at this week’s hearing on Russia’s alleged meddling in the 2016 election.
That wasn’t how I saw it. If only all showboating lawmakers could be treated as Harris was!
The Senate Intelligence Committee, which Burr chairs, convened Wednesday to hear testimony from Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers, Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
The biggest takeaway from the meeting is that the witnesses came unprepared to answer questions about whether President Trump had asked them to intervene in a federal investigation of Russia’s reported interference in the election.
Burr closed the multi-hour session by reprimanding his witnesses for appearing before Congress without answers.
“At no time should you be in a position to come to Congress without an answer,” said the North Carolina senator.
The point here is to note that Burr didn’t exactly run defense for the witnesses or the Trump administration. His frustration over the intelligence chiefs’ lack of clarity appeared to be genuine, and it is indeed troubling that Coats and company had nothing to say about alleged conversations with the president about the Russia investigation.
This is worth pointing out as we get into the meat of Burr’s interaction with Sen. Harris, who, to put it politely, chased after an uninteresting and pointless line of questioning. The California senator demanded that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein answer “yes” or “no” to the question of whether he would be willing to provide Special Counsel Robert Mueller with a letter promising Mueller total independence from the executive branch and the Justice Department.
There were bigger issues to unravel, despite the California senator’s insistence on having the witnesses answer something they had already answered and intimated they’d be willing to answer again.
It’s true: Burr did not similarly interrupt male colleagues, including Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, despite that they, too, asked sharp and pointed questions of the witnesses. However, the difference between King and Harris is that the Maine senator actually chased after a worthwhile line. Why couldn’t the witnesses explain their lack of answers? The fact that the witnesses struggled to answer this question itself raises questions.
King going after the witnesses in a curt and blunt manner likely drew no rebuke because there was something worth pursuing. Harris, on the other hand, wasted the committee’s time with a performance that had a lot of bark, but no bite.
Burr’s reprimand likely has less to do with sexism, the patriarchy or whatever, and more to do with the fact that a rookie senator was wasting the committee’s time with an amateur, “tough-talking, no-nonsense lawmaker” performance.
Congressional hearings are terrible, and Harris is not unique.
Witnesses very seldom reveal important facts not already known, and presiding lawmakers don’t seem to care. So long as the cameras keep rolling and Republicans and Democrats can put on a good show for their constituents with a few well-placed and sharply worded questions, members of Congress seem content to sit through hours of mind-numbingly boring and mostly inconsequential testimony.
Perhaps more congressional leaders should take a page from Burr. Let’s cut back on the I-am-shocked routines for the voters back home, and let’s focus on wrangling meaningful answers from witnesses.
