[394549]

> This just goes to show how much of a charade these hearings are.

Literally no one in the public is going to pay attention or give a shit about hearings where Congress questions lower level executives with little to no decision-making authority.

It's not a charade to want to question the one guy in the company who unquestionably has authority over whatever decisions Congress wants to ask about. If you think they should settle for talking to a new exec with no authority, why not expect them to settle for talking to an intern reading prepared statements?

[tensor]

They are looking for information, they should question the person who can answer those the best. They are not compelling the company to make any decisions/changes and if they were it would be through legal action anyways, not talking to a CEO.

This is pure grandstanding for the purpose of public spectacle. Good on Page for telling them where to stuff it. If congress wants to take these issues seriously they should drop the politics and show and start being serious.

[394549]

> They are looking for information, they should question the person who can answer those the best.

I disagree. Calling the CEO to testify puts the chief decision-maker on notice that these are issues he needs to focus on. Settling for a minor executive won't have the same influence on the CEO. Secondly, a minor executive has much more ability to dodge and evade, since he can legitimately claim "this isn't my area," "wasn't my decision," etc. Also, like I said before, settling for interviewing minor players doesn't attract the public's attention to the issue.

> If congress wants to take these issues seriously they should drop the politics

Congress is politics. It's not some technocratic regulatory body. Engaging in politics is literally the primary job of congressmen.