What would happen if a republican was quoted as saying "so what" to a question asked by Waxmans Inquisition?

Well let's see how Waxman acted. Here is the transcript of a news conference he held on a scandal involving the Clinton's the wholesale firing of the White House Travel Office employees. From the Washington Post Jan 19, 1996:

Rep. Waxman: Well, the testimony we received today indicated that {in} the firing of the travel office employees there was no illegality, there was no wrongdoing, and Mr. Watkins told us that he wasn't directed by the first lady to fire them. I don't know what this hearing is all about. Even if she had directed him to fire them, so what?


Seems to me that the administration had the legal opportunity to replace people if they wanted to when they came into power just as the Republicans when they took over the House were able to replace people who were nonpartisan, who had worked in non-legislative responsibilities
Q: Don't you think it was a little disingenuous for him to stop short and say, "Well, no, you know, Hillary didn't really pressure me." I mean, it's clear she did. And your point is so what? So, and I mean you have got -- come on, don't you think that she pressured him?


A: I don't know whether she pressured him or not, but even if she did, so what?
On February 5, 1996, the Post manage to slip in this letter
"The travel office staff was fired to make room for a Clinton relative and personal friends who hoped to profit from the operation. That's cronyism and nepotism -- strike one. The previous employees were not simply let go; they were accused of criminal wrongdoing, and an FBI official was summoned to the White House and pressured to rewrite a statement to provide cover for the firings. That's falsification and the politicization of a Justice Department bureau -- strike two. Then there's the simple fact that the First Lady says she didn't pressure anyone to fire the previous staff when it's increasingly clear she did. That's known as misrepresentation -- lying in some quarters -- strike three."


So what, indeed."
So the record shows Henry Waxman actively participating in a cover up to conceal a plot by the Clinton White House to install cronies for personal gain in a gross abuse of power all while obstructing the investigation. Holy Patrick Fitzgerald, if that's not throwing sand in the eye of the referee I don't know what is. No one ever expects the Waxman Inquisition.

Great report/question

The truth is simple, Waxman is a socialist and will do anything to protect and advance the socialist takeover of America.

He would be executed at a minimum.

The dems are just looking for a perjury trap. Maybe get some dirt on Bush so they can try to impeach.

waxman is a noodle spined coward. the only reason why he ia a represenative is because he is in the most liberal part of the world............ HOLLYWOOD.

democrats do as i say not as i do. just ask spotted al gore who uses more electricty than 4 us familys in a year

Clinton installed cronies for personal gain???? what do you think the entire Bush Administration consists of?????