After years of promising that he would hold hearings when the Dems were in the majority, he caved and has settled on a 'talking point' where he and his staff say "we have no plans to hold hearings at this time."
Waxman was recently asked, repeatedly, about holding hearings into Sibel's case - at first he invoked the "we have no plans to hold hearings at this time" talking point, and when pressed, he dismissed a questioner by saying that he 'heard her views' and then moved on.
Interestingly, the first questioner began by saying that Sibel was aware of 'foreign knowledge' of 9/11 and congressional corruption, and Waxman appears to acknowledge that - before saying that he has no intention of holding hearings.
Waxman was then asked about the absurdity of him holding hearings into baseball but not Sibel's case, and he responds by saying that it's important that the kids have good role models. *choke.*
Finally he was asked about supporting women, including Sibel, and he dismissed the questioner, simply saying "I've heard your views."
As far as I know, Waxman has only been asked about Sible's case in public once before - details here - where he was equally dismissive, saying:
"I don’t recall that I ever said that I was going to hold hearings on her specific case.... But I really don’t particularly have a comment on her case."At the time I put together an unflattering (but now dated) video, comparing his "I don't recall" with Alberto Gonzales performance.
The video is worth watching again, despite the Gonzales stuff - Sibel has lots of great information there, as always.
As Sibel says in the video, Waxman has seen the entire classified Inspector General's report into her case. In light of the recent Times article, why do you think Waxman is covering for these people? He knows all this, and yet he is still silent.
And here is the most recent Waxman video - Waxman trots out the same talking point that he 'has no intention to hold hearings at this time.'
Note that when the questioner says 'Sibel has evidence of congressional corruption,' Waxman appears to support that by saying 'Uh-huh' - and he dismisses another questioner who asks that Waxman hold hearings into Sibel's case by saying 'I've heard your views.'