Something is happening, but you don't know what it is. Do you, Mr. Grassley?
A spokesman for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on Tuesday blasted Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-Calif.) release of a transcribed interview with the co-founder of the firm behind a controversial dossier on the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, calling the move "confounding."What Foy says is true enough, but that's not the reason Feinstein leaked the transcript. The real reason is because the Democrats need to get out ahead of this story. It needs to be old news so it can be dismissed as such. It's increasingly clear that any collusion going on in the 2016 election cycle was all on the side of the Donks. Andrew McCarthy, writing for National Review, makes the point:
In a statement, the spokesman, Taylor Foy, said that Feinstein's decision to release the transcript without first consulting Grassley compromises the Judiciary Committee's ability to conduct its investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
"Her action undermines the integrity of the committee’s oversight work and jeopardizes its ability to secure candid voluntary testimony relating to the independent recollections of future witnesses," Foy said.
When you look at it hard, two conclusions are impossible to escape: First, at the height of the 2016 campaign, Obama intelligence officials anxiously adopted Christopher Steele’s allegations of traitorous conduct by then-candidate Donald Trump rather than first subject his “dossier” to rigorous investigation — even though Steele himself admits that his “raw,” “unverified” reports might not be true.There's much more at both links I've provided. There's a lot of news to be managed right now and that's why our betters are spending so much time talking about the deportment of Le Grand Orange. Scrutiny won't work well for them and scrutiny is coming.
Second, at the same time the FBI was receiving Steele’s reports — which were based on multiple-hearsay from anonymous Russian sources, and paid for by the Clinton campaign — Obama intelligence officials were briefing congressional leaders about them, thereby ensuring that they’d be publicized just six weeks before Election Day.
6 comments:
OK, so Feinstein deals with the problems of testimony with a lying, incompetent source by publishing the full transcript? Do I have that right?
The only point of that, rhetorically speaking, is to spread so much that the tractor that comes through afterwards can't plow it underneath the ground. And they're complaining about obstruction of justice? Sigh.
That’s a big part of it, Bubba. But the more important factor is this — since the testimony is out there, future witnesses will simply parrot the assertions Simpson made. They all get their stories straight. The problem for Feinstein is there’s much more involved and she can’t square all the circles.
OK, so when does Feinstein (and her minions) get charged with obstruction of justice? That's clearly what it is.
never. you need an Justice dept for that, and we dont have one.
never. you need an Justice dept for that, and we dont have one.
I laugh to avoid crying on that statement.
never. you need an Justice dept for that, and we dont have one.
Too true, sad to say.
Post a Comment