Posted on 05/09/2014 5:58:03 PM PDT by mandaladon
House Democratic leaders have been unstinting in their criticism of the select committee established this week to investigate the aftermath of the 2012 attack on an American compound in Benghazi, Libya. Now they are facing a touch choice about whether to join it, cautiously weighing which strategy would be riskier politically and whether their instinct to boycott the select committee might just give it more power in the end.
Democratic leaders have called the new committee “a political ploy,” a “stunt,” a “sham,” a “waste of taxpayer dollars” and, in the words of White House spokesman Jay Carney, “a blatantly political and partisan effort.” This week, two arms of the party, the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, launched a coordinated messaging blitz to undermine the committee and cast Republicans as political opportunists who have established the select committee only because of their interest in raising money and exciting the GOP base before the 2014 midterm elections.
Should Democrats now take part in this thing they view as a nonserious exercise in pandering to the right? House Democrats met behind closed doors Friday morning to discuss their options, but emerged with no clear answer on how to proceed.
In the case of reopening an investigation into the events of Sept. 11, 2012, in Libya, Democrats are stuck in a damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-don’t scenario. That’s left the caucus torn on what to do.
There’s a vocal chorus of Democrats urging Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to boycott the committee altogether. Appointing members to the committee would lend credibility to the investigation, they fear, and it would force Democrats to risk being pawns in a Republican political game.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
If they don't participate, they and their candidates will really be in for a bloodbath, come November and 2016!
HF
The obvious conclusion to draw from this “dilemma” of the Dems is that they are more interested in politics than justice, and see this purely in terms of Hillary’s and their party’s chances, rather than an investigation into the savage murder of US servicemen and diplomats. This is like the Wellstone funeral to the tenth power. Let them put that in their pipe and smoke it.
And the press minions really went after Obama for not fulfilling his pledge to bring the perpetrators of Benghazi attack to justice, didn't they?
The MSM are sniveling, useless, corrupt suck-ups!
HF
Dems won't make such a mistake, unless God's own Hand brings it about.
HF
Something everyone should remember, the hearing
didn’t put democrats in this spot, the democrats
put themselves in this spot!!!
They call themselves the exact opposite of what they are...a bunch of backward thinking wanna-be Boss Hoggs! I believe they will not be able to help themselves as they will run around after the hearings every day and cry “Ascrimination”, “racism”, “Sexism”, etc. at these hearings. I’ll even give odds that one of them will “come out of the closet” so then they can yell “Homo-phobia”!
The Democrats are trying to assess whether or not, or convince, their media counterparts to boycott all the hearings. The problem is that the material and the evidence is pure dynamite. And the outcomes will be significant.
The minimum outcome of this investigation is that Hillary Clinton will not be the Dem nominee.
The sky’s the limit for the maximum outcome.
A corollary to the Dems decision not to serve on the committee is for the administration not to cooperate with the committee.
I anticipate they will refuse to respond to any and all subpoenas the committee might issue. In which case, there will no evidence that is "pure dynamite".
Instead, there will be a Constitutional impasse...and more months of delay while the courts try to sort it out. At the end of which, the likely administration response to the court's orders will be "Try and make us".
There is plenty to be brought to light without the cooperation of the WH.
Aside from the mystery evidence that Trey Gowdy claims to have on hand, there is
- the timing of the change in the name of the video
- the State Department’s 11am proclaimation that the video was to blame
- the whereabouts of the POTUS during the attack
- Clinton’s refusal to improve readiness
- the difference in materials released to Judicial Watch and Congressional requests
and so forth. And the mere lack of cooperation sets up a Constitutional crisis.
Which may be exactly what they want.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.