The video is hilarous

She's not credible. She "honestly" remembers nothing about the meeting, but she's positive she never saw contemporaneous e-mails about the meeting and has no idea what they were about. Her certainty makes her memory seem highly selective.

Henry Waxman was his own worst enemy in chairing the hearing. Dan Burton spent his questions talking about the FBI files in the Clinton White House. My representative, Tom Davis, was very sharp but came across as a political hack of first order. He seems to want people to believe the not listing a company on the GSA schedule is a disaster for the government. Waxman seemed out of his league in responding to Davis's comments. Very few members on the Republican side seemed to be interested in determining what happened and why. Very few of the Democratic members seemed to think about the implications of the presentation on the way the rest of the government is run. It wasn't the committee's finest hours, IMO.

It's clear to me that the meeting at GSA was a violation of the Hatch Act. It's ridiculous to argue that it was a "teaming meeting" and so forth. Refusing to answer questions about her opinion on whether the meeting was appropriate, and instead saying that she was going to let the OSC finish its investigation (as if that has any impact on her present opinion), is clearly stonewalling.

I don't know enough about the Sun contract in question, but my understanding is that once something is listed on a GSA contract, then it's very easy agencies governed by the contract to make purchases of the listed items. It's not merely a "license to hunt" as Davis put it. The whole point of GSA contracts is to make it easier and more efficient for government agencies to make purchases. Getting listed is a big deal, and the GSA shouldn't be bending over backwards to get vendors listed when there are problems with the contract - as Lurita Doan seemed to be doing.

I was impressed by Diane Watson's questions. She noted that the political presentation didn't seem to be GSA specific, so the obvious question is - how many other government agencies have received political briefings like these in violation of the Hatch Act? Will Waxman's committee continue to hold hearings like these?

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #280,027 by Simon_Jester 3/29/07 8:50:53 PM Reply	The video is hilarous in case anyone missed it. [link\|http://www.youtube.com/v/VePqzIrR-ao\| Video]
Post #280,038 by boxley 3/29/07 9:59:49 PM Reply	ROFL! On to Gitmo, we'll get the truth, time for the sans coulottes to apply the lessons of our betters! On Avant! thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #280,182 by Another Scott 3/31/07 12:44:55 PM Reply	They're replaying the hearing on C-SPAN now. She's not credible. She "honestly" remembers nothing about the meeting, but she's positive she never saw contemporaneous e-mails about the meeting and has no idea what they were about. Her certainty makes her memory seem highly selective. Henry Waxman was his own worst enemy in chairing the hearing. Dan Burton spent his questions talking about the FBI files in the Clinton White House. My representative, Tom Davis, was very sharp but came across as a political hack of first order. He seems to want people to believe the not listing a company on the GSA schedule is a disaster for the government. Waxman seemed out of his league in responding to Davis's comments. Very few members on the Republican side seemed to be interested in determining what happened and why. Very few of the Democratic members seemed to think about the implications of the presentation on the way the rest of the government is run. It wasn't the committee's finest hours, IMO. It's clear to me that the meeting at GSA was a violation of the Hatch Act. It's ridiculous to argue that it was a "teaming meeting" and so forth. Refusing to answer questions about her opinion on whether the meeting was appropriate, and instead saying that she was going to let the OSC finish its investigation (as if that has any impact on her present opinion), is clearly stonewalling. I don't know enough about the Sun contract in question, but my understanding is that once something is listed on a GSA contract, then it's very easy agencies governed by the contract to make purchases of the listed items. It's not merely a "license to hunt" as Davis put it. The whole point of GSA contracts is to make it easier and more efficient for government agencies to make purchases. Getting listed is a big deal, and the GSA shouldn't be bending over backwards to get vendors listed when there are problems with the contract - as Lurita Doan seemed to be doing. I was impressed by Diane Watson's questions. She noted that the political presentation didn't seem to be GSA specific, so the obvious question is - how many other government agencies have received political briefings like these in violation of the Hatch Act? Will Waxman's committee continue to hold hearings like these? My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!