Rachel Maddow made the interesting argument that maybe she doesn't have to do so at all anymore after McCarthy spilled the beans like he did.
The answer though is I'm not sure. There are different levels of questions.
1. No question there is no logical basis for the committee whatsoever. There have been eight previous investigations and and an independent one and as Hillary says, we have learnt everything we need and can learn about what happened.
The BC should never have been formed. As it was, it should have been disbanded a year ago, a month ago, a day ago.
But thanks to the cluelessness of the apparent next Speaker of the GOP House, the Dems now have a much stronger argument to disband it immediately.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/democrats-call-for-immediate-end-of.html
Democrats actually on the Committee have called for its termination many times as Adam Schiff the ranking member did in this NY Times piece on September 4.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/opinion/disband-the-benghazi-committee.html
They now have a much stronger hand to make this case that the media won't be so ready to dismiss as just partisan wrangling.
2. However, assuming it doesn't shutdown ASAP as it should, should Democrats now vacate the Committee?
An interesting question but the answer is not obvious to me.
When it started a record 520 days ago the Democrats had an internal debate as to whether they should have Dems on the Committee. They ultimately decided yes. Schiff was on Chris Hayes last night and said himself that while he had initially opposed Democrats on BC, he had come to change his mind.
I think it might be a good thing they have been on BC. Had they not who would have held the GOP accountable for its excesses?
As the Dems have been on it they have been able to document the fact that the BC has just been absurdly lacking in transparency considering government transparency was the whole ostensible reason for it in the first place.
Indeed, Gowdy has not been willing to release testimony in full but just little choice tidbits leaked to the NY Times and Politico.
The Democrats have demanded that Gowdy make all testimony public-to no avail. Again, this is a Committee whose basis is government transparency.
3. Even if it is good the Dems were on BC could it be time for them to get off of it now that McCarthy has exposed it so blatantly?
Maybe. Maybe not.
The question is Hillary Clinton. Does she still testify on October 22? If so then I'm assuming the Dems will not want to let Gowdy interrogate her alone.
As for Hillary herself can she now blow it off? Possibly, though I'm not sure about that.
But here is what's so interesting. She has been requesting a chance to testify for a long while. It's been Gowdy who has been dragging his feet.
This is rather strange-she wants to testify much more than he wants her to?
For months what stopped the testimony is she wanted her testimony public, he wanted it behind closed doors. Again-this is about government transparency?
If Hillary were in anyway a guilty person would she be demanding to testify publicly?
If Gowdy were confident she in anyway was guilty wouldn't he be demanding that she did?
So he must think that just like when she testified last year, it will make him rather than her look bad. She has the goods.
The answer though is I'm not sure. There are different levels of questions.
1. No question there is no logical basis for the committee whatsoever. There have been eight previous investigations and and an independent one and as Hillary says, we have learnt everything we need and can learn about what happened.
The BC should never have been formed. As it was, it should have been disbanded a year ago, a month ago, a day ago.
But thanks to the cluelessness of the apparent next Speaker of the GOP House, the Dems now have a much stronger argument to disband it immediately.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/democrats-call-for-immediate-end-of.html
Democrats actually on the Committee have called for its termination many times as Adam Schiff the ranking member did in this NY Times piece on September 4.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/opinion/disband-the-benghazi-committee.html
They now have a much stronger hand to make this case that the media won't be so ready to dismiss as just partisan wrangling.
2. However, assuming it doesn't shutdown ASAP as it should, should Democrats now vacate the Committee?
An interesting question but the answer is not obvious to me.
When it started a record 520 days ago the Democrats had an internal debate as to whether they should have Dems on the Committee. They ultimately decided yes. Schiff was on Chris Hayes last night and said himself that while he had initially opposed Democrats on BC, he had come to change his mind.
I think it might be a good thing they have been on BC. Had they not who would have held the GOP accountable for its excesses?
As the Dems have been on it they have been able to document the fact that the BC has just been absurdly lacking in transparency considering government transparency was the whole ostensible reason for it in the first place.
Indeed, Gowdy has not been willing to release testimony in full but just little choice tidbits leaked to the NY Times and Politico.
The Democrats have demanded that Gowdy make all testimony public-to no avail. Again, this is a Committee whose basis is government transparency.
3. Even if it is good the Dems were on BC could it be time for them to get off of it now that McCarthy has exposed it so blatantly?
Maybe. Maybe not.
The question is Hillary Clinton. Does she still testify on October 22? If so then I'm assuming the Dems will not want to let Gowdy interrogate her alone.
As for Hillary herself can she now blow it off? Possibly, though I'm not sure about that.
But here is what's so interesting. She has been requesting a chance to testify for a long while. It's been Gowdy who has been dragging his feet.
This is rather strange-she wants to testify much more than he wants her to?
For months what stopped the testimony is she wanted her testimony public, he wanted it behind closed doors. Again-this is about government transparency?
If Hillary were in anyway a guilty person would she be demanding to testify publicly?
If Gowdy were confident she in anyway was guilty wouldn't he be demanding that she did?
So he must think that just like when she testified last year, it will make him rather than her look bad. She has the goods.
No comments:
Post a Comment