Agreed. This reads like a polite way of informing the DOJ that if they don't get things in order, the Senators may be inclined to start up some hearings with teeth.
"the Senators may be inclined to start up some hearings with teeth."
Play out the whole process of those hearings with teeth and see how long it takes and the chance of anything happening as a result. Normally and typically results in just outrage that plays well with voters and makes them look like they are doing something. Laws are not passed in hearings. Not to say that something can't or won't become of it. But the stakes are high here and if ("if") there is something expect it to take time and energy and involve a big back and forth.
I love both my Republican and Democratic friends (the two main political parties in the states), but I find their memory of how the political system actually works highly fluid.
I'm all for Rand Paul doing similar grandstanding. He's written letters, made speeches, and generally mucked about. Not much has changed though. He gets away with this because 1) His party is weakly held together so party discipline is light, 2) His party is out of power so they can really throw whatever mud they want and it doesn't matter, and 3)He can do his own thing and party leaders can kind of shrug and say "Well. There goes Rand!" while winking and smiling -- the message being: he's not actually doing anything.
Most of these statements are not true about the Democratic senators involved here, so they're on a shorter leash. Right now, as long as folks like raynier gush on about how great they are and the rest of the party pays little attention, there's little downside. But if this were to get anywhere near seriously damaging the administration, the party whip would politely take them aside and have a word with them about committee appointments. (That's his job). So right now, just like with Paul, I'm applauding and thinking this is great. But just like with Paul, I'm not naive enough to think this amounts to much more than the Democrats trying to take both sides of the issue at the same time.
Side note: if you'd like to have a fun history lesson, spend a day googling various senators and the letters they've sent. Now look at what they actually accomplished.
I had an interesting experience when I was just out of college (long time ago) and the power company cut off our power and damaged some machinery. I complained and the utility was totally accommodating of my complaints and it seemed as if for sure they were going to do something. After all they agreed with me. They were really nice and assured me I would get compensated.
So I had nothing to fight against after all they appeared to be on my side. And each time I followed up it was just a bit more time.
Well, as time went they actually did nothing other than importantly give me the impression they would do something. [1] They inserted as much time as possible between the event and doing something as they could. After it all played out I had lost my steam because the whole fight didn't seem as important as it did on the day it happened. And I dropped it. But learned a valuable lesson in terms of human behavior and how to divert anger by agreement.
[1] Happens with collecting bad debt as well (when you are owed money is what I mean). Customer strings you along maybe sends a bit of money or maybe nothing but always seem as if the big payment is right around the corner. Them bam! Sorry not paying anything.
Why are they allowed to take time to "get things in order"? They lied, shouldn't they be prosecuted? If the text is saying they won't, that seems much closer to polite than serious.
