Should Democrats Boycott the Benghazi Committee?

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Nancy Pelosi wants John Boehner’s select committee on Benghazi to have equal representation from Democrats and Republicans:

“If this review is to be fair, it must be truly bipartisan,” Pelosi said in a Tuesday morning statement. “The panel should be equally divided between Democrats and Republicans as is done on the House Ethics Committee. It should require that witnesses are called and interviewed, subpoenas are issued, and information is shared on a bipartisan basis. Only then could it be fair.”

….House Democrats have not yet committed to appointing members to the committee. Her call for the committee to be evenly split could set the stage for boycotting the panel if Republicans rebuff her suggestion.

Good luck with that. I’d say the appointment of Trey Gowdy—a tea party attack dog with a grand total of 40 months of seniority—to lead the committee is a pretty good indication of just how bipartisan Boehner wants this thing to be. In short, not even the teensiest, tiniest little bit bipartisan. This is going to be a made-for-Fox extravaganza, and that’s that.

So should Democrats just boycott the committee and let Republicans howl into the wilderness all by themselves? That’s a really hard question, isn’t it? My first instinct is to say yes: it’s obvious that Democrats will have no influence on the committee, and attending does little except provide it with a veneer of legitimacy.

On the other hand, it’s pretty easy to cherry-pick witnesses and testimony, and having someone there to cross-examine the Republicans’ pet conspiracy theorists might prevent more than a few bad news cycles. Then again, it might not. It’s not as if the reporters covering this stuff aren’t already well aware of the timelines of what really happened.

Decisions, decisions. I’m not sure that boycotting sets a good precedent, but if ever there was a committee that deserved it, this is the one. In the end, though, I’ll bet Democrats show up. Not only are they afraid of the possible damage from a committee run amok, but they’re probably loath to give up their chance for TV time. Brace yourselves.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend