9 ms·

I'm curious what other people think the informational value of these hearings are. It seems like it is either posturing and grandstanding, or reasonable questi

I'm curious what other people think the informational value of these hearings are. It seems like it is either posturing and grandstanding, or reasonable questions to which evasive or non-answers are given. Edit: Oh no it's Lindsey Graham, so probably more grandstanding. Edit 2: Editorializing here, they're threatening to take away section 230 safe harbor protections as a punishment for "censoring" right wing content using the pretext of youth health.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
The positive argument is that a hearing forces companies to develop official positions on things they might otherwise prefer to ignore. I know there have been a few times where tech companies announced some new project they’re going to do to address issues just in advance of a hearing. I tend to agree that their primary function is public shaming, though.
- jsrjenkins 6y ago
  I wonder if it is something to do with this information: https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1328461277971288067?s=20 https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1328461277971288067?s=20 Josh Hawley is a US Senator for Missouri.
  - komali2 6y ago
    Josh Hawley often promotes the meme that Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube censor conservatives and conservative politicians. I have an extremely difficult time taking people like him seriously in a world where Facebook refuses to ban Steve Bannon when he calls for Dr. Fauci to be beheaded, yet twitter does so without issue. But then again, Twitter refuses to address covid-19 misinformation, and allows politicians to generally say whatever they want, conservative or no. All while youtube does nothing about qanon conspiracy videos flooding the platform. It's just a shame that american politicians now have to be hardline partisans to the point where they will lie right into the microphone to toe the party line.
    - esja 6y ago
      Bannon didn't literally call for Fauci to be beheaded. He was using a fairly old-fashioned figure of speech to call for Fauci to be fired and for an example to be made of him. If that sort of comment warrants a ban, half the sports fans on Earth will lose their Facebook accounts.
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        The quote in full context (https://www.businessinsider.com/steve-bannon-banned-twitter-fauci-and-wrays-heads-on-pikes-2020-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/steve-bannon-banned-twitter-...) was: -------- "I'd actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I'd put the heads on pikes, right, I'd put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats. You either get with the program or you're gone — time to stop playing games. Blow it all up, put [Trump aide] Ric Grenell today as the interim head of the FBI, that'll light them up, right." Jack Maxey, the podcast's co-host, responded: "Just yesterday there was the anniversary of the hanging of two Tories in Philadelphia. These were Quaker businessmen who had cohabitated, if you will, with the British while they were occupying Philadelphia. These people were hung. This is what we used to do to traitors." To this Bannon replied: "That's how you won the revolution. No one wants to talk about it. The revolution wasn't some sort of garden party, right? It was a civil war. It was a civil war." -------- I think it's pretty fair to characterize this as "literal". It's hard to read this (or listen to it, it was originally in audio form) and not think they're legitimately mulling over the possibility of executions.
        esja 6y ago
        I listened to the podcast in question and the following one where he elaborated further. It was very clearly not intended to be taken literally. It was no different to the sorts of things you hear in pubs when people are talking about football referees.
        komali2 6y ago
        Maybe it was clear to you because you think it would be crazy to start beheading government advisors for the crime of trying to do their job. However, we've seen plenty of instances where this kind of rhetoric can enable the less stable elements of the population. Pizzagate resulting in a guy holding up a pizza shop he was convinced had child sex slaves in the basement immediately comes to mind. A plot to kidnap a governor comes to mind. Fantasizing about running over protesters, and then James Alex Fields Jr. doing just that and murdering Heather Heyer comes to mind.
xalava 6y ago
Having followed hearings related to Libra, sure there is a lot of posturing. However, first, some MP asks precise critical questions. Secondly, it seems that even for trained CEOs one hour of intense questioning takes a toll. I've rarely heard something new, but you can detect some of their personality, their contradictions, the important points for MP ...
- ethbr0 6y ago
  It'd be nice to see more cooperative questioning. If no answer is given, have the next questioner ask the same question again. At some point, that's going to get under even Zuckerberg's skin.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    If you want cooperative questioning you need a true cooperative goal - otherwise the process is inherently adversarial no matter how much passive aggressive cloaking is applied.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - ethbr0 6y ago
      It's not passive aggressive cloaking. If a CEO can't answer a question posed by Congress, running out the clock shouldn't be a viable strategy. "Mr. Zuckerberg, I don't feel you answered my colleague's point. Let me ask again..." Why do the American people care about the next question, if the previous question wasn't answered? Which is more important, more questions or answers?
      - Nasrudith 6y ago
        > "Mr. Zuckerberg, I don't feel you answered my colleague's point. Let me ask again..." That quote is exactly what I mean by passive aggressive cloaking actually. You won't get the answers you want if the questioning process is adversarial as it turns into "Don't talk to the police." or deposition style of being unhelpful as possible instead of trying to actually inform because of incentives.
NikolaeVarius 6y ago
Its just a struggle session in different name
runawaybottle 6y ago
It’s in line with useless meetings a typical company has. It’s hard to get a sense for how bullshit some people’s jobs are until you accidentally get invited to one of their meetings. I once accidentally stayed much longer than I was supposed to in a meeting between PMs/Product and I was absolutely shocked that that’s what they spend several hours a day doing.
- ethbr0 6y ago
  If you want a laugh, go in an enterpise PM meeting, listen to their pain points, and pipe up that you could write an integration of (system X) and (system Y) (that they spend most of their day copying and pasting data between) in a weekend.
3np 6y ago
Graham makes no sense... Just from the one minute I watched: "We must incentivize social media platforms to come up with standards that are transparent and opaque"
- darrenoc 6y ago
  Oh dear, there's no way anyone can be that stupid is there?
leftyted 6y ago
> I'm curious what other people think the informational value of these hearings are. It seems like it is either posturing and grandstanding, or reasonable questions to which evasive or non-answers are given. I agree with you. They need to get the cameras out of congress. Everyone involved in these hearings is mining them for clips for their campaign ads and it's sickening.
- whatshisface 6y ago
  >They need to get the cameras out of congress. Everyone involved in these hearings is mining them for clips for their campaign ads and it's sickening. It is the cameras you have to thank for finding out that they are posturing and grandstanding.
  - everdrive 6y ago
    But it also prevents them from saying things that may be politically unpopular. eg, a moderate senator standing up to the fringes in their wings.
    - Nasrudith 6y ago
      They aren't exactly getting praise for what they are doing right now - only less complaints from the brainless hysterical "do-somethingists" and savage roasting by those who have even an amateur level in knowing what the hell they are talking about. Really I would expect standing up to the fringes in their wings would be a popularity boosting move but party poltical machine alienating one as .
  - leftyted 6y ago
    Without the cameras they have no reason to posture. They posture so they can cut a clip, publish it, and say: "Look! Here's me standing up to the evil Republicans|Democrats|tech CEOs who want to steal your precious bodily fluids!" In the presence of cameras, politicians become instagram celebrities.
    - 6y ago
Karunamon 6y ago
>I'm curious what other people think the informational value of these hearings are. Considering that they are not even under oath, precisely zero. They can lie to the lawmakers' faces with no recourse. I very distinctly remember Jack telling congress the time before last that they "do not shadowban", and then screenshots of their admin dashboard were leaked[1] that show they explicitly did have multiple kinds of shadowbans. [1]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/jgxd3d/twitter-insider-access-panel-account-hacks-biden-uber-bezos https://www.vice.com/en/article/jgxd3d/twitter-insider-acces... Disregard that first sentence, apparently they are all sworn in by default. It's just that perjury is barely ever pursued.
- koolba 6y ago
  The witnesses are under oath. Everyone that testifies before Congress is under oath and lying would constitute a federal crime. Interestingly the questioners, in this case the Senators, are not under oath and they can say whatever they’d like. Regardless of how false or nonsensical.
  - Karunamon 6y ago
    Does this happen off-camera? Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see them get sworn in.
    - edoceo 6y ago
      Yes. There is a bunch of procedure/setup stuff before the sit-down that's not on live stream. Maybe in C-SPAN archives? I've seen it before, on C-SPAN c2008
  - jsrjenkins 6y ago
    Has any witness ever been convicted? There are so many witnesses that give completely false information that is later shown to be a lie. Has there any been a case of prosecuting such lies? Without prosecution it is all just empty threats and there is no real incentive to speak the truth. At the last hearing, for instance, Jack Dorsey said that they do not shadow ban, but later pictures appeared of their administrative interface and certainly that capacity was there. An outright lie and yet he isn't even interrogated on this. Wouldn't there be arrests and trials if it truly was a federal crime?
everdrive 6y ago
I think most people on HN agree with you. Because these are televised, and MOST people will not watch the hearing, each senator is looking for their own sound bite which they can replay to show how tough they were. The illusion falls apart when you watch the actual hearing: the same question is asked over and over, the speakers are not given a real chance to reply, and there is no real dialogue. Of course it doesn't help that many of the questions are ill-informed in their own right.
- cafard 6y ago
  The expression "bunk" or "bunkum" ultimately derives from Buncombe County, North Carolina, apparently. The story is that the congressman from its district gave a speech in Congress that made no sense at all. When asked, he said that he was "speaking to Buncombe."
  - edoceo 6y ago
    Neat! https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/bunkum https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/bunkum
- Karunamon 6y ago
  I wonder what the answer for this is? On one hand, you're absolutely right, these events are opportunities for grandstanding. On the other hand, the meetings of the government should be open and transparent by default.
  - everdrive 6y ago
    It's a tough call. I think part of the problem is frankly the electorate. You won't find many on HN, but remember that this sanctimonious grandstanding is broadly popular. Senators aren't just doing it to entertain themselves.
  - bleepblorp 6y ago
    > I wonder what the answer for this is? Don't rely on politicians to do direct questioning of witnesses. Politicians have the wrong incentives, and generally lack the skills, to do anything other than grandstand in public meetings. Legal fact-finding, including the questioning of witnesses, should be done by lawyers and subject matter experts.
mrlala 6y ago
I bet Lindsey Graham is going to go crazy on Trump's tweets being tagged for misinformation.. that should be amusing at least.
steve76 6y ago
Is Twitter propped up? Is Facebook bailed out? Can any of you survive under a fed prime rate of 20% or above? Doing so would shore up pensions, and improve USA standing with Africa, Asia and South America, likely stopping a lot of wars. What's the hiring process like at your company? When the country desperately needed remote employment this past year, how many new hires did you make? Ford Motor Car and GM hired entire factory floors of workers at double the minimum wage. Can any of you pass your own hiring process or answer just one of your technical interview questions? You said your success was only due to a privileged upbringing. Isn't that by choice? You could have joined the Marines and get shot or blown up or burnt alive for everyone else, but you didn't. Now you want to burden the entire world. Why? Because you feel guilty? By the way, who said you wouldn't be shot yet?
MuffinFlavored 6y ago
> I'm curious what other people think the informational value of these hearings are. I want to hear from conservatives why they think most of (if not all) of big tech is "in the pockets of the Democrats". Why do all of these software engineers/IT field workers typically end up as left-leaning? Is it a matter of education/intelligence? Empathy? I feel like the split has to be at least 85% Democrat / 15% Republican in IT.
- sGSDASG 6y ago
  west coast vs east coast, aerospace vs video vs web dev. It's a YMMV thing. I've worked with a team of all republicans.
- eej71 6y ago
  In my personal experience my left leaning friends appear to feel very comfortable "letting it all hang out" on social media. It's very clear what their political opinions are. Those who aren't quite in sync with these view points play their cards closer to the chest. So I bet the %s you have aren't quite correct. I do think the prevailing educational system K-12 and the universities have a strong tilt to the left - generally ahead of the country. I also suspect most people simply inherit these default settings as their view points.
- dx87 6y ago
  It's a coastal thing, plus it's not a stretch to think that big tech is in the pockets of Democrats when Facebook told the Obama campaign "we're on your side", and google had executives crying on stage after Trump won.
  - MuffinFlavored 6y ago
    > It's a coastal thing Why do New York and California vote so heavily blue?
    - sjg007 6y ago
      Because the struggle is real.
nabla9 6y ago
Hearings of this type can like legal depositions. The goal is to get statements into public record and pin down the answers to be used later. Ideally congress would delegate this job to top lawyers who would go list of questions very methodologically. Making these hearings public and televised has made them into a show. Congressmen make questions that are more like statements in order to please their voters and lots of value is lost.
- dhimes 6y ago
  It didn't pin down Graham on supporting a late-term Supreme Court nominee, even though he's on the record as not supporting them.
  - nabla9 6y ago
    Graham is a senator. We are talking about people who are testifying in the Senate hearings. Those people who raise their hand and then sit face towards congressmen.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

The positive argument is that a hearing forces companies to develop official positions on things they might otherwise prefer to ignore. I know there have been a few times where tech companies announced some new project they’re going to do to address issues just in advance of a hearing. I tend to agree that their primary function is public shaming, though.

jsrjenkins 6y ago
I wonder if it is something to do with this information: https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1328461277971288067?s=20 https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1328461277971288067?s=20 Josh Hawley is a US Senator for Missouri.
- komali2 6y ago
  Josh Hawley often promotes the meme that Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube censor conservatives and conservative politicians. I have an extremely difficult time taking people like him seriously in a world where Facebook refuses to ban Steve Bannon when he calls for Dr. Fauci to be beheaded, yet twitter does so without issue. But then again, Twitter refuses to address covid-19 misinformation, and allows politicians to generally say whatever they want, conservative or no. All while youtube does nothing about qanon conspiracy videos flooding the platform. It's just a shame that american politicians now have to be hardline partisans to the point where they will lie right into the microphone to toe the party line.
  - esja 6y ago
    Bannon didn't literally call for Fauci to be beheaded. He was using a fairly old-fashioned figure of speech to call for Fauci to be fired and for an example to be made of him. If that sort of comment warrants a ban, half the sports fans on Earth will lose their Facebook accounts.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      The quote in full context (https://www.businessinsider.com/steve-bannon-banned-twitter-fauci-and-wrays-heads-on-pikes-2020-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/steve-bannon-banned-twitter-...) was: -------- "I'd actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I'd put the heads on pikes, right, I'd put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats. You either get with the program or you're gone — time to stop playing games. Blow it all up, put [Trump aide] Ric Grenell today as the interim head of the FBI, that'll light them up, right." Jack Maxey, the podcast's co-host, responded: "Just yesterday there was the anniversary of the hanging of two Tories in Philadelphia. These were Quaker businessmen who had cohabitated, if you will, with the British while they were occupying Philadelphia. These people were hung. This is what we used to do to traitors." To this Bannon replied: "That's how you won the revolution. No one wants to talk about it. The revolution wasn't some sort of garden party, right? It was a civil war. It was a civil war." -------- I think it's pretty fair to characterize this as "literal". It's hard to read this (or listen to it, it was originally in audio form) and not think they're legitimately mulling over the possibility of executions.
      - esja 6y ago
        I listened to the podcast in question and the following one where he elaborated further. It was very clearly not intended to be taken literally. It was no different to the sorts of things you hear in pubs when people are talking about football referees.
        komali2 6y ago
        Maybe it was clear to you because you think it would be crazy to start beheading government advisors for the crime of trying to do their job. However, we've seen plenty of instances where this kind of rhetoric can enable the less stable elements of the population. Pizzagate resulting in a guy holding up a pizza shop he was convinced had child sex slaves in the basement immediately comes to mind. A plot to kidnap a governor comes to mind. Fantasizing about running over protesters, and then James Alex Fields Jr. doing just that and murdering Heather Heyer comes to mind.

xalava 6y ago

Having followed hearings related to Libra, sure there is a lot of posturing. However, first, some MP asks precise critical questions. Secondly, it seems that even for trained CEOs one hour of intense questioning takes a toll. I've rarely heard something new, but you can detect some of their personality, their contradictions, the important points for MP ...

ethbr0 6y ago
It'd be nice to see more cooperative questioning. If no answer is given, have the next questioner ask the same question again. At some point, that's going to get under even Zuckerberg's skin.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  If you want cooperative questioning you need a true cooperative goal - otherwise the process is inherently adversarial no matter how much passive aggressive cloaking is applied.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    It's not passive aggressive cloaking. If a CEO can't answer a question posed by Congress, running out the clock shouldn't be a viable strategy. "Mr. Zuckerberg, I don't feel you answered my colleague's point. Let me ask again..." Why do the American people care about the next question, if the previous question wasn't answered? Which is more important, more questions or answers?
    - Nasrudith 6y ago
      > "Mr. Zuckerberg, I don't feel you answered my colleague's point. Let me ask again..." That quote is exactly what I mean by passive aggressive cloaking actually. You won't get the answers you want if the questioning process is adversarial as it turns into "Don't talk to the police." or deposition style of being unhelpful as possible instead of trying to actually inform because of incentives.

NikolaeVarius 6y ago

Its just a struggle session in different name

runawaybottle 6y ago

It’s in line with useless meetings a typical company has. It’s hard to get a sense for how bullshit some people’s jobs are until you accidentally get invited to one of their meetings. I once accidentally stayed much longer than I was supposed to in a meeting between PMs/Product and I was absolutely shocked that that’s what they spend several hours a day doing.

ethbr0 6y ago
If you want a laugh, go in an enterpise PM meeting, listen to their pain points, and pipe up that you could write an integration of (system X) and (system Y) (that they spend most of their day copying and pasting data between) in a weekend.

3np 6y ago

Graham makes no sense... Just from the one minute I watched: "We must incentivize social media platforms to come up with standards that are transparent and opaque"

darrenoc 6y ago
Oh dear, there's no way anyone can be that stupid is there?

leftyted 6y ago

> I'm curious what other people think the informational value of these hearings are. It seems like it is either posturing and grandstanding, or reasonable questions to which evasive or non-answers are given. I agree with you. They need to get the cameras out of congress. Everyone involved in these hearings is mining them for clips for their campaign ads and it's sickening.

whatshisface 6y ago
>They need to get the cameras out of congress. Everyone involved in these hearings is mining them for clips for their campaign ads and it's sickening. It is the cameras you have to thank for finding out that they are posturing and grandstanding.
- everdrive 6y ago
  But it also prevents them from saying things that may be politically unpopular. eg, a moderate senator standing up to the fringes in their wings.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    They aren't exactly getting praise for what they are doing right now - only less complaints from the brainless hysterical "do-somethingists" and savage roasting by those who have even an amateur level in knowing what the hell they are talking about. Really I would expect standing up to the fringes in their wings would be a popularity boosting move but party poltical machine alienating one as .
- leftyted 6y ago
  Without the cameras they have no reason to posture. They posture so they can cut a clip, publish it, and say: "Look! Here's me standing up to the evil Republicans|Democrats|tech CEOs who want to steal your precious bodily fluids!" In the presence of cameras, politicians become instagram celebrities.
  - 6y ago

Karunamon 6y ago

>I'm curious what other people think the informational value of these hearings are. Considering that they are not even under oath, precisely zero. They can lie to the lawmakers' faces with no recourse. I very distinctly remember Jack telling congress the time before last that they "do not shadowban", and then screenshots of their admin dashboard were leaked[1] that show they explicitly did have multiple kinds of shadowbans. [1]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/jgxd3d/twitter-insider-access-panel-account-hacks-biden-uber-bezos https://www.vice.com/en/article/jgxd3d/twitter-insider-acces... Disregard that first sentence, apparently they are all sworn in by default. It's just that perjury is barely ever pursued.

koolba 6y ago
The witnesses are under oath. Everyone that testifies before Congress is under oath and lying would constitute a federal crime. Interestingly the questioners, in this case the Senators, are not under oath and they can say whatever they’d like. Regardless of how false or nonsensical.
- Karunamon 6y ago
  Does this happen off-camera? Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see them get sworn in.
  - edoceo 6y ago
    Yes. There is a bunch of procedure/setup stuff before the sit-down that's not on live stream. Maybe in C-SPAN archives? I've seen it before, on C-SPAN c2008
- jsrjenkins 6y ago
  Has any witness ever been convicted? There are so many witnesses that give completely false information that is later shown to be a lie. Has there any been a case of prosecuting such lies? Without prosecution it is all just empty threats and there is no real incentive to speak the truth. At the last hearing, for instance, Jack Dorsey said that they do not shadow ban, but later pictures appeared of their administrative interface and certainly that capacity was there. An outright lie and yet he isn't even interrogated on this. Wouldn't there be arrests and trials if it truly was a federal crime?

everdrive 6y ago

I think most people on HN agree with you. Because these are televised, and MOST people will not watch the hearing, each senator is looking for their own sound bite which they can replay to show how tough they were. The illusion falls apart when you watch the actual hearing: the same question is asked over and over, the speakers are not given a real chance to reply, and there is no real dialogue. Of course it doesn't help that many of the questions are ill-informed in their own right.

cafard 6y ago
The expression "bunk" or "bunkum" ultimately derives from Buncombe County, North Carolina, apparently. The story is that the congressman from its district gave a speech in Congress that made no sense at all. When asked, he said that he was "speaking to Buncombe."
- edoceo 6y ago
  Neat! https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/bunkum https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/bunkum
Karunamon 6y ago
I wonder what the answer for this is? On one hand, you're absolutely right, these events are opportunities for grandstanding. On the other hand, the meetings of the government should be open and transparent by default.
- everdrive 6y ago
  It's a tough call. I think part of the problem is frankly the electorate. You won't find many on HN, but remember that this sanctimonious grandstanding is broadly popular. Senators aren't just doing it to entertain themselves.
- bleepblorp 6y ago
  > I wonder what the answer for this is? Don't rely on politicians to do direct questioning of witnesses. Politicians have the wrong incentives, and generally lack the skills, to do anything other than grandstand in public meetings. Legal fact-finding, including the questioning of witnesses, should be done by lawyers and subject matter experts.

mrlala 6y ago

I bet Lindsey Graham is going to go crazy on Trump's tweets being tagged for misinformation.. that should be amusing at least.

steve76 6y ago

Is Twitter propped up? Is Facebook bailed out? Can any of you survive under a fed prime rate of 20% or above? Doing so would shore up pensions, and improve USA standing with Africa, Asia and South America, likely stopping a lot of wars. What's the hiring process like at your company? When the country desperately needed remote employment this past year, how many new hires did you make? Ford Motor Car and GM hired entire factory floors of workers at double the minimum wage. Can any of you pass your own hiring process or answer just one of your technical interview questions? You said your success was only due to a privileged upbringing. Isn't that by choice? You could have joined the Marines and get shot or blown up or burnt alive for everyone else, but you didn't. Now you want to burden the entire world. Why? Because you feel guilty? By the way, who said you wouldn't be shot yet?

MuffinFlavored 6y ago

> I'm curious what other people think the informational value of these hearings are. I want to hear from conservatives why they think most of (if not all) of big tech is "in the pockets of the Democrats". Why do all of these software engineers/IT field workers typically end up as left-leaning? Is it a matter of education/intelligence? Empathy? I feel like the split has to be at least 85% Democrat / 15% Republican in IT.

sGSDASG 6y ago
west coast vs east coast, aerospace vs video vs web dev. It's a YMMV thing. I've worked with a team of all republicans.
eej71 6y ago
In my personal experience my left leaning friends appear to feel very comfortable "letting it all hang out" on social media. It's very clear what their political opinions are. Those who aren't quite in sync with these view points play their cards closer to the chest. So I bet the %s you have aren't quite correct. I do think the prevailing educational system K-12 and the universities have a strong tilt to the left - generally ahead of the country. I also suspect most people simply inherit these default settings as their view points.
dx87 6y ago
It's a coastal thing, plus it's not a stretch to think that big tech is in the pockets of Democrats when Facebook told the Obama campaign "we're on your side", and google had executives crying on stage after Trump won.
- MuffinFlavored 6y ago
  > It's a coastal thing Why do New York and California vote so heavily blue?
  - sjg007 6y ago
    Because the struggle is real.

nabla9 6y ago

Hearings of this type can like legal depositions. The goal is to get statements into public record and pin down the answers to be used later. Ideally congress would delegate this job to top lawyers who would go list of questions very methodologically. Making these hearings public and televised has made them into a show. Congressmen make questions that are more like statements in order to please their voters and lots of value is lost.

dhimes 6y ago
It didn't pin down Graham on supporting a late-term Supreme Court nominee, even though he's on the record as not supporting them.
- nabla9 6y ago
  Graham is a senator. We are talking about people who are testifying in the Senate hearings. Those people who raise their hand and then sit face towards congressmen.