TO: Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)
FROM: ~SGT A~
SUBJECT: Arrogant, Pompous Conduct
Senator Wyden, as one of the American people that you so confidently claim to represent when questioning our government representatives during oversight hearings, I felt compelled to make sure you understand that this American does not approve of your conduct as a Representative.
The complete and total lack of respect you displayed toward Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Cabinet Office he has been appointed to lead, was noting short of despicable! The unprofessional, rude, and vile treatment of Attorney General Jeff Sessions by you was unconscionable.
The Senate’s oversight role is important, but it does NOT give you the right—or the authority—to treat anyone, regardless of their position, the way you did the Attorney General Sessions.
You made the assertion to the Attorney General that the American people are tired of Representatives coming before oversight committees and “stone-walling” them. I am but one of those American people, but clearly speak to many more Americans on the outside looking in than you. What the American people have become fed up and disgusted with, is the total lack of civil discourse between those who represent our various political parties.
All that is left is for the President to have an octagon cage installed in the Capitol, then relocate the Supreme Court Justices ringside, to do some real judging. If Vegas starts taking bets, I’ll place one whatever the odds are, that given the way you treat others, you won’t be standing long.
I could not help but notice when I pulled your information up off your website, that you are an attorney. That helped me to better understand why you are a politician. I can’t imagine given your choice of questions and method of questioning witnesses that you would do well in a court room.
I’m not an attorney, but I do have law enforcement experience and I can not imagine a judge letting you get far, badgering a witness to tell you what another witness was implying, or meant by an answer you got from them. If a direct, clear explanation of something a witness cryptically suggest to you about another is important, my guess is the appropriate person to decipher that would be the person speaking to you in code, not someone who was not there, who has no means of getting in that other persons head.
Allow me to briefly refresh your memory. When questioning Attorney General Sessions, in response to him asking you what one of the questions was you were asking, your response was:
“The question is, Mr. Comey said that there were matters with respect to the recusal that were problematic and he couldn’t talk about them, what are they?”
Just prior to the exchange above, you were badgering the Attorney General to provide additional clarification to an implication by Mr. Comey, that he had somehow violated the conditions of his recusal.
Mr. Sessions gave you a polite, direct answer to which you returned a snide remark about his answer not passing the “smell test.” Being dignified man of character, Mr. Sessions does not seem well versed at dealing with pompous, pusillanimous people like you, so please, allow me to suggest that in the future that you blow your nose before questioning a witness.
If you are truly concerned about what the American people want and think, you and your liberal colleagues will quit wasting all this taxpayer money investigating made up, imaginary relationships between the Russians and President Trump’s campaign staff.
You are old enough to remember the cold war, so unless you have been living with your head in the sand, it should be no surprise to you that the Soviets, or any other foreign intelligence service, have been and will continue to play spy games around election time. If you believe this is the first time in our nations history the Soviets have attempted to tamper with our election process, or the first we have been alerted to it, then you sir are too naive to serve in your capacity as a United States Senator.
And to leave you with one last reminder, relying on the word of s man who testified under oath, no less than two times rather firmly that he had never been forced or even felt coerced to do anything wrong, such as not investigating or following through on the investigation of a crime. His Deputy and now acting Director has also testified likewise, as have all others questioned.
You may believe otherwise based on media reports that are based on unidentified anonymous sources, or suggestive innuendo by a disgruntled employee who was terminated for a long list of inappropriate conduct who has admitted to leaking information to the press, but that is fantasy, not belief!
And my final thoughts for you to reflect on are:
- Leadership is NOT about being loud, rude, and obnoxious toward subordinates, or anyone else.
- No smart interrogator opens with a heavy hand when dealing with a cooperative person.