Five panels to grill FBI on Clinton

[DonViejo]

Source: The Hill


By Julian Hattem - 07/06/16 08:43 PM EDT

Furious congressional Republicans are launching a multipronged attack against the FBI and Hillary Clinton.

A total of five congressional committees will either hold hearings with high-profile law enforcement officials over the next week or have already begun inquiries to the FBI about its investigation of the former secretary of State.

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) called for Clinton to be barred from the intelligence briefings typically given to presidential nominees and said that State Department officials should be subjected to administrative penalties for support of the former secretary’s use of a private email server.
Senate GOP leaders, meanwhile, are pushing for the FBI to release the transcript of its 3.5-hour interview with Clinton over the July Fourth weekend.

Congress has just a few days left before it skips town for the presidential nominating conventions in Cleveland and Philadelphia, and Republicans are giving signals that they intend to spend much of that time hammering home their criticism that the presumptive Democratic nominee is deceitful and has endangered national security.

-snip-

Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286777-five-panels-to-grill-fbi-on-clinton

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. They want to get this started

before their party comes completely unglued in Cleveland.

[apnu]

18. Not sure why, they'll turn up nothing and the GOP will look like fools... again.

James Comey, no stranger to the Clintons because of the Whitewater fishing trip, found no laws were broken. And to express his bitter disappointment that he, once again, couldn't catch a Clinton, chose to break DOJ and FBI protocol and provide his opinion on Hillary Clinton's judgement in an effort to appease his own failings.

If that guy couldn't find anything to indict Hillary Clinton, no amount of Republican lead circuses will.

The whole thing will make them look like fools. It won't whip up any frenzy for Trump's ego stroking fest in Cleveland beyond what's already whipped up. We are at peak Republican outrage right now and its little more than a bunch of old white geezers shouting from their porches and a gaggle full of incompetent white supremacists who think now is the time to expose themselves.

I have a feeling, come November, there will be significant conservative fatigue on election day.

[patricia92243]

2. Ryan seems to be head of the Republicans. Would it normally be the presumptive

nominee that is the leader of the Republicans. I realize Ryan is actually in office and Donald is just still running for office. But I thought the nominee would be the one that actually made the decisions and the speaker would carry out his wishes.

[karynnj]

10. The speakership is an important position in its own right

The parties are not usually monolithic in following the nominee - even when the nominee is someone more conventional. Consider that every member of Congress is also running for reelection. They will run on their own records and positions as much as the Presidential nominee's.

Not all Democrats have always assumed the position of the nominee - even on the most important issue facing them at that point. Obama led the Democrats (with a gracious Dodd, chair of banking committee and Reid standing back) on the need to save the financial system. Yet many Democrats voted against Tarp. Kerry's campaign criticized both the invasion of Iraq before the diplomacy was exhausted and them criticized many things about how Bush was waging the war, including Abu Ghraib. Bill Clinton, in his book tour in June and July 2004, criticized the "left" (not naming names, but it was quite reasonable to assume Kerry was one of those he meant.) for criticizing how Bush was managing the war. Lieberman, the last VP nominee went further.

These are cases where not only did prominent Democrats take strong positions, they differed with the presumptive nominee. Note that in neither year, was there outrage that some Democrats argued positions at odds with the nominee.

[HereSince1628]

3. The House is under their control, and therefore doable, so they will do it

Comey pretty clearly handed this off to them.

The House will likely move to produce a letter of disapproval/censure that will keep the server scandal in the news across much of September.

The effect of this on the election is likely to be limited unless the R's can dump Trump. It's impact is likely to merely confirm distrust of Clinton among those people who already distrust her.

[karynnj]

15. I think the House has very few days in session before November

Even if Comey had said nothing other than the conclusion, the Republicans would have used the SD IG report that says she did not follow Obama guidelines and SD rules. In addition, they could say that she did not fully archive her email even knowing that there were FOIA requests for it before she left office.

However, the important thing for her is that Comey ( the FBI) and Lynch (the DOJ) have determined there will be NO indictments. That is a big deal and should make Democrats much more comfortable. It does NOT mean that there is nothing the Republicans can make an issue of --- and they did not need Comey's summary to do so.

As to the story continuing, there will be stories every time the SD releases more records from aides under FOIA requests.

[HereSince1628]

22. Moving it to the House puts it outside of DOJ/Administration control of prosecution

It limits the sorts of actions that can be taken, but it leaves it squarely in the hands of a body controlled by the republicans.

This will almost surely attempt to strip HRC's close advisors of their security clearances and that will create some problems for her organizing a White House staff around her close confidants. I'm pretty sure we will not be seeing Sid Blumenthal's name in her administration.

Considering the shambles that is the republican presidential campaign, anything that makes House republicans look like their are 'standing strong' against a democrat is probably welcome going into their re-elections.

[karynnj]

23. Does a Congressional committee have the ability to remove clearances

I don't think so. They have already called on the State Department to do so. As to her closest people, no matter what happens now several would have tough confirmation fights. More than Susan Rice did - but chief of staff and NSA do not need confirmation.

As to Blumenthal, I think many Democrats might even vote against him. There are many positions not needing confirmation.

[sarae]

4. Jesus CHRIST

People are dying from guns and police brutality every day, but Republicans insist on spending all their time and OUR money investigating Clinton's fake scandals. So fcking disgusting.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

6. +1. First thing I thought of, too.

[greymattermom]

5. I don't think most folks get worked up about servers

Do you know where your server is? It could work against them, if some congress folks ask him how secure the government server is. That's only fair, I think. We need to know how what she did compares with previous emails. Like in the Bush administration.

[underpants]

7. Ooh ooh ooh lemme get on TV!!!

They want to make sure they show how unhappy they are.

[Arkansas Granny]

8. What is their goal with this investigation? Do they just want to discredit Hillary or can they

actually bring some sort of legal proceedings against her?

[DCBob]

11. This is a show to help appease their angry ignorant voters back home.

They know this going nowhere.

[bemildred]

14. The goal is to make a lot of noise. nt

[sarae]

17. I'm sure they want to keep the negative aspects of this story in the news as long as possible...

in an effort to pile more doubt and suspicion on her. Republicans are sick in the head.

[LiberalLovinLug]

20. Exactly

a "where there's smoke there's fire" push. Hillary was a little clumsy, and maybe even a little selfish in wanting some of her more private emails to not have to be on some kind of historical public record. Who DOES want that?

Sometimes the smoke is just that. But even if they have to blow their own smoke to keep it going they will. Not because they think she actually did something criminal, but because they know that their idiocracy base will, with enough coaching from Fox News and Hate Radio, believe that even the FBI are secret Muslim loving, Clinton stooges. I think even those at Fox News, and Rush Limpballs, way back when they were just on for a few years were astounded at how easy it was to persuade a large segment of society looking for someone to blame for their problems on "libruls" and thus Democrats, by simply repeating lies and innuendo over and over.

Gawd, do the Republicans do anything other than waste tax payer money on hold hearings, investigations, panels etc.... on Democrats? Yet the Democrats don't even hold one hearing on Bush admin war crimes.

[Odin2005]

24. Pandering to the GOP base.

[L. Coyote]

25. Propaganda.

[Iliyah]

9. Show and tell. It really did not matter because the "no indictment"

still would have resulted in the $$ bullshit talkathon. That's what the GOPers do with total support of the corporate media. The GOPs have regulated themselves as the party of nothing burgers.

GOPers don't give a rat's arse about America nor her people.

[JoePhilly]

12. Well ... we know that they don't plan to GOVERN.

So they have to do something with their time.

[bemildred]

13. Pikers, why not go for six investigations? nt

[Sunlei]

16. HaHa Ryan & his Fellow Republicans have to kiss THEIR Great White Hopes ass soon, in front of the

entire world.

[dhill926]

19. fuck these petulant, infantile assholes....

[JSup]

21. Looking for soundbytes...

...that can be taken out of context (aka "You didn't build that&quot for election season would be my guess.

[RandySF]

26. Way to set priorities.

It's good to know Cobgress has no other pressing issues to deal with.

[ancianita]

27. Make Work time in the House of Grifters -- it's Tuesday.