And I think it's the right choice.
I had considered the issue earlier today.
"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."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/after-mccarthys-revelations-should.html
"This is a possibility that's long intrigued me, but I can't make up my mind if it would be a good decision. On the plus side, letting Republicans meet all by themselves would pretty dramatically make the point that this is little more than a partisan boondoggle. On the minus side, losing access to the committee's materials would prevent Democrats from fighting back whenever Trey Gowdy or his staffers decide to leak a partial transcript to the New York Times."
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/10/should-democrats-all-quit-benghazi-committee
So he basically had the same thought process as I did-we'd rather shutdown the asylum but as long as its open Dems can't let the inmates run it.
This is what the Dems have decided it looks like. I agree with Congressman Elijah Cummings here:
"But in a statement, Dem Rep. Cummings says:"
“As Rep. McCarthy’s statement made crystal clear this week, Republicans created the Benghazi Select Committee from the very beginning to wage a taxpayer-funded political campaign against Hillary Clinton’s bid for president. Obviously, this is an unethical abuse of millions of taxpayer dollars and a crass assault on the memories of the four Americans who died, and I believe it should be halted immediately. However, I am not naive in thinking Republicans will cease their political attacks on Secretary Clinton, which is why I will be in that room defending the truth.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/10/01/despite-gop-admission-about-hillarys-polling-democrats-wont-boycott-benghazi-probe/
"Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi said today that Democrats just might pull their participation one of these days, but that she is encouraging Democrats to attend, for now, anyway:"
“It’s obvious that it should be disbanded based on the leader’s own words. But since we recognize Republicans do not intend to do that I would encourage my members to continue to participate, and then we will see how much longer they want this to go on,” Pelosi said. “How long we will participate depends on how serious they are, and we haven’t seen any signs of seriousness.”
"So Dems will continue to dangle the threat of a boycott, to continue feeding the storyline that this whole thing has become a full blown farce. But in the end, when Clinton testifies, they’ll be there in that room."
I had considered the issue earlier today.
"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."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/after-mccarthys-revelations-should.html
Kevin Drum made more or less the same argument as well.
"This is a possibility that's long intrigued me, but I can't make up my mind if it would be a good decision. On the plus side, letting Republicans meet all by themselves would pretty dramatically make the point that this is little more than a partisan boondoggle. On the minus side, losing access to the committee's materials would prevent Democrats from fighting back whenever Trey Gowdy or his staffers decide to leak a partial transcript to the New York Times."
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/10/should-democrats-all-quit-benghazi-committee
So he basically had the same thought process as I did-we'd rather shutdown the asylum but as long as its open Dems can't let the inmates run it.
This is what the Dems have decided it looks like. I agree with Congressman Elijah Cummings here:
"But in a statement, Dem Rep. Cummings says:"
“As Rep. McCarthy’s statement made crystal clear this week, Republicans created the Benghazi Select Committee from the very beginning to wage a taxpayer-funded political campaign against Hillary Clinton’s bid for president. Obviously, this is an unethical abuse of millions of taxpayer dollars and a crass assault on the memories of the four Americans who died, and I believe it should be halted immediately. However, I am not naive in thinking Republicans will cease their political attacks on Secretary Clinton, which is why I will be in that room defending the truth.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/10/01/despite-gop-admission-about-hillarys-polling-democrats-wont-boycott-benghazi-probe/
Like I argued in my earlier piece the Dems certainly aren't going to let the GOP interrogate Hillary alone:
“It’s obvious that it should be disbanded based on the leader’s own words. But since we recognize Republicans do not intend to do that I would encourage my members to continue to participate, and then we will see how much longer they want this to go on,” Pelosi said. “How long we will participate depends on how serious they are, and we haven’t seen any signs of seriousness.”
"So Dems will continue to dangle the threat of a boycott, to continue feeding the storyline that this whole thing has become a full blown farce. But in the end, when Clinton testifies, they’ll be there in that room."
P.S. Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats have a great letter out today demanding Trent Gowdy and friends quit conducting a political action committee under the cover of the Benghazi Investigation.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/senate-democrats-shut-down-benghazi-mccarthy
I've said it before but it bears being said often: I love me some Harry Reid.
One of his best moments was when he talked to that friend of his about how Mitt Romney didn't pay any taxes a few years. The GOP got so mad and demanded the name of that friend. LOL.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/04/09/harry-reid-still-isnt-sorry-for-saying-mitt-romney-doesnt-pay-taxes/
No comments:
Post a Comment