Should Democrats refuse to cooperate with sham Benghazi hearings?

[randys1]

whatddya think, i say they should NOT participate

[immoderate]

1. How about...

They assign one person to monitor and act as a parliamentarian. He or she can raise objections to the procedures. Just a thought.

--imm

[KeepItReal]

2. Why participate in what even the GOP calls a "trial"?

Meet the chief prosecutor in the GOP’s Benghazi show trial

Rep. Trey Gowdy, the tea party Republican tapped to lead the new committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks, made a telling slip Wednesday morning in describing his mission.

Asked by MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough about the possibility that his panel’s work would continue into the 2016 election campaign, Gowdy replied that “if an administration is slow-walking document production, I can’t end a trial simply because the defense won’t cooperate.”

A trial? And the Obama administration is the defense? So much for that “serious investigation” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) promised; his new chairman intends to play prosecutor, proving the administration’s guilt to the jury — in this case, the public.

As a legal matter, Gowdy, a volcanic former prosecutor, is on shaky ground declaring his committee a court and his investigation a trial.

[pinto]

3. Good catch. I think the Dems should have a presence for just that situation.

[KeepItReal]

4. Then I'd nominate Reps. Elijah Cummings, Alan Grayson and Sheila Jackson Lee.

They would be excellent in that capacity.

[pinto]

5. I'd support that, plus 2 others. I think the committee is set 7 (R), 5 (D) at this point.

[mmonk]

6. Absolutely. This will be a test of Third Way knees.

So far they've always been bent.