For the longest time - ever since the House Select Committee on Benghazi was first created almost a year and a half ago (the Watergate scandal didn't last this long, just to provide some historical perspective, but then it was actually GOING somewhere), to be perfectly blunt - I have wondered why Chairman Trey Gowdy wants the testimony of former Commissar of State Hillary RODHAM Clinton. Why bother summoning her before the committee? Oh, sure, I know, she was, you know, COMMISSAR OF STATE WHEN A U.S. DIPLOMATIC INSTALLATION WAS ALLOWED TO BE OVERRUN BY ENEMY FORCES AND FOUR AMERICANS ABANDONED TO BE SLAUGHTERED AND THEN FALSELY BLAMED ON A YOUTUBE VIDEO, but as she said almost three years ago, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" I'm not speaking to what difference it SHOULD make, but what difference it WILL make - which is, none whatsoever.
There are three overlapping possibilities: (1) She will speak at great length and say absolutely nothing - the "I can't recall"/"My brain's in a blender, it's jello" gibbering she made famous during her husband's run, er, "on top"; (2) She will lie up one side and down the other and Gowdy won't be able to touch her (so to speak) no matter how much damningly contradictory evidence he introduces; and (3) She'll pull a Lois Lerner and spend however many cumulative hours pleading the Fifth. Although I doubt that last one would be good for her polling numbers, which is the only leverage anybody will ever have over her.
I can sit here and give you this sneak preview without citing the depressing items in this news story:
Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign says the former secretary of state will testify October 22nd before the House committee investigating the deaths of four Americans in the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012.
The committee would not immediately confirm that date....
[Mrs.] Clinton's lawyers and the Republican-led committee have been negotiating over the terms of her appearance.
So Hillary is dictating to Gowdy if and when she'll deign to show up - without even a courtesy head's up - instead of the usual process (with which I have personal experience) where the court/grand jury/committee issues a subpoena that is served in person by an individual with a badge to the witness, and the witness must show up on the date indicated on the subpoena, at which time the witness is sworn in under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help her Barack, and then she answers the court's/grand jury's/committee's questions truthfully or they'll bury her perjuring ass so deep even the frackers can't find it.
And yes, I had a lawyer as well, but we never got to "negotiate" a damn thing.
Tell me again what the Chairman expects to get out of this appearance?
Campaign spokesman Nick Merrill says the Democrat candidate's testimony will be public....
The committee chairman, South Carolina-4 Representative Trey Gowdy, initially requested a private interview.
That's an awfully high level of confidence and awfully low level of fear, bordering on non-existent, on the Empress's part. If she thought there was any possible jeopardy from this appearance, she would absolutely want her testimony to be behind closed doors. But no, she wants it in full public view - not because she has any plans to be transparent - something of which she is congenitally incapable - but because she thinks she can derive political benefit from grandstanding to the Nutroots about Gowdy's "witchhunt" and recycling all her old lies (I wouldn't be surprised if she rolled out the "spontaneous demonstration from an Islamophobic YouTube video" chestnut) and all around making a fool of the Chairman and every Republican on his committee, while its Democrats chant "GO HILLARY GO! GO HILLARY GO!".
Like they haven't been repeatedly humiliated already.
We on the Right should all have learned twenty years ago that Republican congressional probes of Democrat presidential scandals are the epitome of futility and self-debasement. But we do it anyway for....oh, beats me - appearances' sake? To uphold the process? Obsessive/compulsive optimism? What difference at this point does it make? The result will always be the same.
As Trey Gowdy either (1) has to know or (2) will dismally find out.
No comments:
Post a Comment