SH,
The GOP has never had a coherent message about what HRC and the Obama Administration did wrong in Benghazi. They've always been able to point to negligent acts and omissions (as did the government's internal probes), but for whatever reason, neglect and poor performance has never been grounds to get rid of, impeach, or even politically damage public officials. It should be, but it never has been, simply because the public has never demanded it. We just don't care very much. Some kind of nefarious intent or fraud has always been a requirement.
However, there are a few things to note. First, the Benghazi Committee had access to things the previous investigations didn't always have access to, such as HRC's e-mails. The scope and investigative power of their committee was not like what the previous investigative bodies had, and their work was not entirely redundant of what the other committees had done.
Second, the cost of an investigation is heavily driven by the forthrightness of the people and institutions being investigated. If the person under investigation is dishonest and doesn't consistently turn over relevant information and documents, a lot more resources have to be committed to conduct the investigation. A competent investigator doesn't just take the word of the person under investigation. His job is to verify. When HRC decided to conduct her official business in secret, that pretty much guaranteed that any investigation into her activities was going to be expensive.
Hell, it took an army of lawyers, forensic experts, investigators, and federal judges months just to get at HRC's official e-mails. That's expensive, and it should piss you off. Those e-mails don't belong to her. They belong to you, because she sent and received them while in the course and scope of her employment with the US government. However, rather than turn them over to you upon request, she
bullshat you and ****** with you every step of the way. That's outrageous, and that fact all by itself should be enough reason not to vote for her.
Consider the example of Gerald Ford, who exemplified the inexpensive investigation on the Nixon pardon. He waived executive privilege, turned over everything that was asked for, and appeared before a House Judiciary Subcommittee. How much do you think that investigation cost the taxpayer? Other than the committee staff who were already on the government's full time payroll, probably very little if anything. The bill for lunch during the hearing was probably the biggest expense. HRC followed and consistently follows the complete opposite of Ford's example.
Third, I think it was worth the cost and hassle of conducting the investigation, as poorly and politically as the GOP conducted it. Personally, I think the GOP was stupid to make a publicity stunt out of it. They should have conducted it in a low key (but not secret) fashion and shouldn't have presented it as a political talking point. However, regardless of that, they did pretty much establish that the Administration (including HRC herself) lied about the incident, and I don't use the word "lie" haphazardly or lightly. I use that term when the preponderance of the evidence shows that the Administration made statements they knew to be false. When they claimed the attack was a spontaneous attack by people upset about a privately made video, they knew it was BS, and yes, that's big problem. It should bother people. Will it? Who knows? But it should.
Finally, let's keep our perspective on the money issue. Collectively, we've spent
more on origami condoms and lesbian obesity than we have on the Benghazi Committee.
Click to expand...
