For being witches. A significant proportion of people they put on trial ended up getting drowned or burned at the stake or hanged, et cetera. No, i was not there, neither were you, but it is fair to assert that salem, massachusetts did not actually have infestation of witches. What salem, massachusetts had was a really unfortunate panic about a civic hysteria, and to remind us of that, we as americans have this really commonly used phrase, in modern american english, the phrase witch hunt. We all know if theres a witch hunt under way, it is not like saying rabbit hunt or bear hunt or manhunt, it doesnt apply theres a witch out there, thats the person for whom you are legitimately hunting. The idea of a witch hunt is that there isnt a witch. Theres a selfserving exercise maybe using the specter of a witch, but thats just used to excuse your own self serving hysteria. Thats what witch hunt means. Everybody knows that. This is not an obscure thing, not about witches, paranoid self serving group hysteria. We are clear on this. This is not an obscure idiom. This is an everyday household word thing. We all get what witch hunt means, right . Right. Then they would try and explain themself in such a way that they would blame our insistence upon getting the truth as a political witch hunt. Mr. Speaker, that must mean theres a witch somewhere. Nope. Exactly the opposite of that. Nope. Congressman Pete Sessions of texas, thats not what witch hunt means. If somebody says, wish hunt, that doesnt mean theres a witch. Doesnt anybody let republican members of congress at least watch monty python . We found a witch. May we burn her . How do you know shes a witch . She looks like one. Bring her forward. I am not a witch. I am not a witch. But youre dressed as one. They dressed me up like this. And this isnt my nose, it is a false one. Well, what would you do with the nose, and the hat. But shes a witch. Did you dress her up . No. Yes, yes. A bit. She has got a wart. What makes you think shes a witch . Well, she turned me into a newt. A newt . I got better. I got better. The whole point, the whole idea of the witch hunt is that she is not really a witch, right . They werent really witches. Witch hunts arent about that. Congress Pete Sessions of texas understands it differently apparently. They would blame our insistence upon getting the truth as a political witch hunt. Mr. Speaker, that must mean theres a witch somewhere. Congressman Pete Sessions of texas is talking about there a whole new interpretation of what the phrase witch hunt means. It is the special select committee the republicans in the house formed to do yet another investigation into the attacks in libya in 2012, which killed four americans, including the u. S. Ambassador to that country. Democrats have characterized republicans efforts to turn that tragedy into political scandal, they characterized that as a witch hunt. If congressman sessions remarks are any indication of the broader feeling about that, they may apparently not think a witch hunt is a bad idea. Must mean theres witches. I do have to say though right before he said that, before he said if theres a witch hunt that must mean theres a witch, congressman Pete Sessions said Something Else on the same point which bears scrutiny. You at least need to hear it, if only because maybe you know what it means. After working really hard on this today, i am still at a loss to what he is talking about. Watch. Hiding the ball is one thing, deception is another. And this administration has gone out of their way. Theyve lawyered up to make sure that they could i think mislead congress. Where they would make sure we couldnt ever get involved in anything but a goo ball, then they would try and explain themselves in such a way. Wait, hold on. We couldnt ever get involved in anything but a what . We really couldnt ever get involved in anything but a goo ball. Goo ball. What is congressman Pete Sessions of texas talking about with the gooball reference . Urban dictionary says it has something to do with pot, i am quite sure thats not what he meant. We checked with a texas source to see if goo ball is a texas thing, maybe has to do with something in texas and comes up regularly in texan conversation that were not used to in washington. No, not as far as we can tell. We contacted Pete Sessions office and asked if they know what he means and if they would share it with us, again, the phrase . We really couldnt ever get involved in anything but a goo ball. Congressman sessions office said the congressman was traveling so they couldnt ask him directly, they said they have not heard him use the word goo ball before. They say it is not a part of his vocabulary. They said what he meant when he said goo ball was maybe a mess. Anything but a goo ball. In the middle of this discourse about a special select committee in the house, there is a really interesting question, a really interesting strategic question on the democratic side, and the democrats are having a hard time figuring it out. Republicans have formed this committee, democrats think it is nonsense what theyre doing and the way theyre trying to do it. Should democrats ignore the whole goo ball, ignore it all, boycott participating, or should the democrats take part so theres a chance of hearings from the committee being other than what kevin drum called a made for Fox News Channel extravaganza. Interestingly, theres a pretty direct precedent for this hard decision in the not too recent past. September 15, 2005, that was 17 days after Hurricane Katrina hit new orleans. President george w. Bush did his famous no tie, no suit jacket, long walk to the podium, i take responsibility, apologetic address to the nation how the government had failed in response to Hurricane Katrina, leading to over 1800 american deaths. At that time, in 2005, both the u. S. Senate and house were under the control of the Republican Party, and on the day that president bush gave that address in new orleans in washington, republicans in the house voted to create a special select committee to investigate preparation for and response to Hurricane Katrina. The republicans would not only chair the committee, they would have the most seats on the committee, control the subpoena power for the committee, they would handle questioning of witnesses and overall report of the committee. By the way, thats exactly what the republicans are offering now in the benghazi select committee. But in 2005 when faced with that prospect as the official government investigation into what went wrong with the government response to Hurricane Katrina, democrats seeing thats what republicans wanted to do said no way, we are not participating in that. They said it should be a nonpartisan investigation, independent of the government, modeled on the independent 9 11 commission which had such a big impact. They said it should be taken out of the hands of the republican congress. When the republicans in Congress Said no, the democrats walked. Watch nancy pelosi in this clip explaining the democrats position at the time. Watch what she says about democrats voting their conscience on the issue and what she says their conscience will tell them to do. And what are your expectations for other democrats, are you encouraging them one way or the other on this vote or let them vote their conscience . They always vote their conscience, but they have to know what the facts are in the legislation. So i never ask anybody not to vote their conscience. And their conscience i think will tell them that the legislation the republicans are putting forth is a sham. They call it bipartisan. The speaker appoints all of the members. It is not evenly divided, it is unclear what subpoena power would be. I would ask my colleagues not to support such a sham, and i believe when they know the facts they will know that this is not how to serve the interest of the people of the region. This is not a way to find the truth. It is a way to give cover for the failure of the administration and Immediate Response to katrina. They always vote their conscience. Their conscience i think will tell them that this is a sham. Thats how nancy pelosi kept a reign on her democrats. This is 2005 and they polled out, republicans went ahead. And everybody knew the democrats werent participating and it was republican only thing. And they went ahead. When that republican only report came out, had precisely two sentences in the whole report about how president george w. Bush did. This was the verdict. There total, quote, it does not appear the president received adequate advice and counsel from disaster officials. Earlier president ial involvement might have resulted in a more effective response. Other than that, he did a heck of a job. Thats all they said about him. So that is sort of the immediate precedent for the democrats own decision whether or not to participate in what they also believe is another sham partisan republican inquiry in the form of the latest select committee the house just formed. Nobody took the republican only select Committee Investigation into katrina seriously. Nobody remembers its weird whitewash with the president doing nothing wrong because nobody paid attention to the report. The democrats strategy of boycotting republican investigations they consider to be a sham in that case quite successfully marginalized that investigation. On the other hand, theres darrell issa and Elijah Cummings, a totally different tactical example. As chairman of a key oversight committee, darrell issa launched hearing after hearing and investigation after investigation after investigation, all of which the democrats think are shams. One of the ways they made their strongest case that darrell issa isnt really investigating anything, he is just grand standing and doing so in a way thats partisan, pointless, classless. One of the ways democrats have expressed that about darrell issa is by having the ranking democrat, Elijah Cummings, say that at all of the committee hearings. Having Elijah Cummings in the hearing room is a critical way democrats made their case that darrell issa in their view is a clown and his supposed investigations should not be taken seriously. Ladies and gentlemen, seeking the truth is the obligation of this committee. I can see no point in going further. I have no expectation miss lerner will cooperate. Therefore we mr. Chairman, i have a statement. I have a procedural question, mr. Chairman. I have a procedural question. Mr. Chairman, you cannot run a Committee Like this. You just cannot do this. We are better than that as a committee. I have asked for a few minutes to now youre turning me off. I am asking a question. I am the Ranking Member of this committee, and i wanted to ask a question. For the past year, the central republican accusation in this investigation we are adjourned. Close it down. Before our thank you. If you will sit down and allow me to ask the question, i am a member of the congress of the United States of america. I am tired of this. Well we have members over here, each who represent 700,000 people. You cannot just have a onesided investigation. There is absolutely something wrong with that, and this is absolutely unamerican. Congressman darrell issa later had to apologize for his behavior toward Elijah Cummings, his now infamous cut his mic gesture. Thats just one example of how it has been advantageous to the democrats to have Elijah Cummings in that room, to be participating in the darrell issa investigations that they think are ridiculous, if only so they can say on camera in front of everybody and on the record as part of those investigations, hey, we think this is ridiculous. This is nuts. What youre doing here is not real oversight, what youre doing here is wrong and let me tell you how. So those two examples. Which of those two tactics should the democrats choose now . Should they boycott like the katrina report or should they Elijah Cummings this, make sure they always have a democrat in the room . The special select committee on benghazi was announced last week. Today, the republicans rolled out their republican membership on the committee. Democrats so far havent said if they will participate at all. Should they name five democrats to seats republicans give them on that committee, the republicans have seven seats, democrats will have five seats and essentially no power. Should they put five democrats in those five seats . Should they boycott the whole enterprise, say we are not participating in this sham or is there a third way. Congresswoman rosa deloro suggest there might be a different way suggesting splitting the difference. She said the democrats shouldnt fill the seats they give them on the committee, they should send one person, one democratic member of congress to be there to speak up in that Elijah Cummings blow the whistle role in whats going on in that hearing room, also to get access to documents and subpoenas the committee will issue and obtain. Which tactic should the democrats choose with the new select committee . If you were a democrat in congress, what would you do . Lar . Yup. All five of you for 175. Our clients need a lot of attention. Theres unlimited talk and text. Were working deals all day. You get 10 gigabytes of data to share. What about expansion potential . Add a line anytime for 15 bucks a month. Low dues. Great terms. Lets close. New at t mobile share value plans. Our best value plans ever for business. Can you start tomorrow . Yes sir. Alright. Lets share the news tomorrow. Today we failrly busy. Tomorrow were booked solid. We close on the house tomorrow. I want one of these opened up. Because tomorow we go live. Its a day full of promise. And often, that day arrives by train. Big day today . Even bigger one tomorrow. When csx trains move forward, so does the rest of the economy. Csx. How tomorrow moves. I couldnt lay down it was a i couldnt sit up because it burned so much. As first lady of our church we have meetings. We have activities. And i couldnt do any of that. Any time anything brushed up against this rash it would seem like it would set it on fire again. It was the worst pain i ever had. Hiding the ball is one thing. Deception is another. And this administration has gone out of their way. Theyve lawyered up to make sure that they could i think mislead congress. Where they would make sure we really couldnt ever get involved in anything but a goo ball. Congressman Pete Sessions of texas speaking about the special select committee into benghazi. Mr. Sessions said he resented democrats were considering it a political witch hunt. Well, mr. Speaker, that must mean theres a witch somewhere. The whole idea of the witch hunt getting confused in this fight. Democrats are having to decide if theyre going to participate in what the republicans are doing with the special select committee or whether they will as they have in the past on other select committees, whether theyre going to boycott this enterprise. Joining us now, Debbie Wasserman schultz of florida, chair of the Democratic National committee and member of state and foreign operations committee. Thanks for being here. Nice to see you. You, too, thanks, rachel. Not just as a member of congress but as chair of the committee, do you think democrats should participate in what the republicans are doing with this select committee . You know, the more we spend time on this today, the more we discussed it, the more ive had a chance to see that the republicans proposal us for us to have no consultation on subpoena power, not even to be guaranteed to be able to be in the room when witnesses are interviewed. I mean, thats how imbalanced and farcical this will be. Im really leaning more towards that we should not legitimize or lend our credibility to a committee or a process that is really as transparent as they come when it comes to what it really is trying to do is gin up their base and use it as a turnout machine. Because reality is, rachel, they lost the aca as a white hot issue that gets their base fired up because the Affordable Care act is working. You have 8 Million People that signed up. Theyve dropped about 20 points among their own partisans now, as far as that being an issue that really drives them. Clyven bundy blew up in their face, thought they would latch onto that, now they have to go back to benghazi. It is not going to be a credible processor fair, but leader pelosi did give the speaker another opportunity by sending him a letter, asking him to sit down with her, which he previously agreed to do, to see if they could work something out and make sure that if youre going to have a select committee that the process be fair. It seems to me what you just said about the way the republicans are trying to use this to excite their base, to drive turn out for the mid terms among the most fervent supporters, people that get fired up about this in a partisan way, seems to me thats now cooked, thats now going to happen. Theyre going to do this committee, with or without the democrats, use it that way. I think kevin drum was right when he described it as a made for fox news extravaganza. Is there some value to having anywhere between one and five democrats in the room every time theres a hearing to put a different perspective into it, to maybe interfere with the kinds of stuff they have been able to float on fox about this tragedy that the democrats believe arent true . In our caucus meeting this morning on this topic there were credible cases made on both sides. There were members that felt very strongly that our participation would simply lend a farcical process that was a pure partisan political ploy. The credibility that it didnt deserve. And there was an effective case made, i thought, which could argue that we should make sure that we show up. Youre right. Elijah cummings has done a remarkable job at making sure the minoritys voice, the democratic voice, is a part of that ridiculous process that darrell issa presides over. By the way, i dont know if this is something youve had a chance to look at or talk abo