On Nov 7, 7:59*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

Testimony before congressional committees is known, to the nth
detail, long in advance, before it's offered. One doesn't GET to
testify before a committee unless the committee wants to hear what
the witness wants to say.

Oh, I see, and committees only ask people they already agree with to
testify, is that it? *Odd, I seem to recall a bunch of such committees
putting the boots to people unfortunate enough to find themselves
sitting in the hot seat. *For that matter the members of the
committees themselves often don't agree.

I didn't say that.

You're right that committees often hear conflicting opinions but that's
because an agreement was worked out, in advance, between the committee chair
and ranking member as to what testimony will be offered. Often the majority
counsel will say to the minorty counsel: "We'll have six witnesses, you can
call any four."

In rare cases, the majority will attempt to compel a witness to testify by
issuing a subpoena. This almost never works - at least as far as getting
testimony. The refusal of a witness to honor a subpoena often has great
public opinion value.

A committee hearing is like a symphony concert. For every hour before the
public, there are ten hours of rehearsal and preparation.

I would agree that the fact that some extreme whack job that wants to
confiscate IRA's even got to testify before Congress is not a good
sign. They didn't call you or me to testify, did they? Obviously
they call people who's opinions they believe to be credible and
possible solutions. That they would even listen to this shows that
there is obviously enough interest to get this person on the agenda.