WhatFinger

Political Theater...While Comey's testimony might be interesting, I labor under no delusion that it will be meaningful

FBI Director James Comey called to testify before House Oversight committee

By Robert Laurie ——--July 6, 2016

American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

Tomorrow, FBI Director James Comey will appear before the House Oversight and Government Reform committee, where he'll attempt to explain his baffling decision not to recommend charges for Hillary Clinton. How he'll do that is anyone's guess, since virtually every media outlet - even the left-wing ones - seems stunned that his "no charges" announcement began with a litany of chargeable offenses. As Fox News Reports:
FBI Director James Comey will explain Thursday to House lawmakers his bombshell decision not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton over her handling of sensitive emails. Comey, who took no questions after announcing his decision Tuesday, agreed to go before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee after several lawmakers sought an explanation. In saying he would not press the Justice Department to pursue an indictment against the likely Democrat nominee for president, Comey nonetheless laid out a strong case that she had violated laws regulating government employees' safeguarding of sensitive emails. Comey may shed more light on his decision-making process when called before lawmakers. (Associated Press) “The FBI's recommendation is surprising and confusing," Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said. "The fact pattern presented by Director Comey makes clear Secretary Clinton violated the law. Individuals who intentionally skirt the law must be held accountable. Congress and the American people have a right to understand the depth and breadth of the FBI's investigation."
I could see this going one of three ways:
  1. A brutal grilling for Comey, who's already laid out all the reasons he should have - but didn't - recommend charges.
  2. A massive piece of grotesque political theater, perpetrated by a party who would much rather see Hillary Clinton in the white house than their own candidate.
  3. Comey blows the lid off something. ...this is, admittedly, an extreme longshot.
Option 1 offers no political advantage and option 3 is a fairy tale, so I'm inclined to think it'll conform to option 2. Afterward, these Republicans can moan about how "We were outraged, and we tried to get to the bottom of it. Vote for those of us who are up for re-election, and we'll keep up the pressure!" If Trump loses, it will also add ammo to their "we told you so" tour: "Maybe if you hadn't nominated Trump, and we'd put Jeb! in there, we could have done more."

Support Canada Free Press

Donate
If all of that sounds cynical, it's because I'm now 100% certain that Republican party bigwigs would prefer Hillary defeat Trump. She is, at least in the career-politician sense, one of them. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the pressure not to charge Mrs. Clinton came from the GOP. The "no difference between the two parties" mantra has never been more true than it is right now. We're witnessing collusion on a grand scale so, while Comey's testimony might be interesting, I labor under no delusion that it will be meaningful. We shall see.
Subscribe

View Comments
Robert Laurie——

Robert Laurie’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain.com

Be sure to “like” Robert Laurie over on Facebook and follow him on Twitter. You’ll be glad you did.

VIEW Comments

Sponsored