How dare they refuse to protect the queen!

Congressional Dems furious GOP colleagues may 'leak' (i.e. tell the public) what's in FBI's Hillary files

You’ve heard by now that the FBI is turning over its notes from the Hillary e-mail interrogation to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Republicans on the committee want to see if Hillary’s answers in the interviews were consistent with what she said under oath when she testified before them earlier this year, and whether there is any basis for a perjury case against her. FBI Director James Comey was very careful in telling the committee that Hillary did not lie “to the FBI.” That doesn’t mean she didn’t lie to anyone. A comparison of the FBI interview with her congressional testimony should be very interesting. Now remember: The Clintons’ entire world revolves around keeping things secret if they possibly can. This is why Hillary ran the schlock, homebrew e-mail server in the first place - to keep the contents of her e-mails out of public view in the event of subpoenas or Freedom of Information Act requests.

And because protecting Hillary means keeping information about her away from your prying eyes, Democrats on the committee are hopping mad at the FBI for turning over their notes to the committee. Why? Because they fear the worst, the worst being that the public will actually be shown the information: GOP lawmakers said they were shocked by the FBI’s decision not to recommend criminal charges against Clinton last month and have accused Comey, a Republican, of instituting a two-tiered system of justice. Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch defended the decision on Capitol Hill last month, and Herring, in his letter on Tuesday, reiterated much of their arguments. Clinton and her team were “extremely careless,” the FBI official maintained, but their behavior did not meet the legal hurdles for an indictment. Democrats had opposed the call to give the FBI materials to Capitol Hill, claiming that Republicans were merely trying to prolong a politically damaging saga for Clinton.

The move could set a precedent, warned Rep, Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and discourage people from participating in future interviews with the FBI. Handing over the notes also serves little purpose, Schiff maintained, since the case is closed and Congress has no power to reopen it. “And make no mistake, if these statements are released to Congress, they will be released,” said Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, in a statement on Monday. “The history of the partisan Benghazi investigation made it clear that any information that can be leaked by the majority to the prejudice of Secretary Clinton, will be leaked.” That’s a hilarious use of the word “leaked.” Releasing information is simply releasing it. Here it is, everybody! There’s nothing sneaky or untoward about that. A “leak” is when someone who is not authorized to release information gives it to someone who is not supposed to have it, usually under anonymity because he or she would get fired if it was known what they did. If Jason Chaffetz decides to make this information public, that’s not a leak. That’s simply telling the public what’s in the file. And this is a terrifying prospect for Democrats because they know what Hillary said about the FBI interview is probably not exactly what happened. Now, getting the media to pay much attention to it is another matter entirely. They’re on a mission to stop Donald Trump, and any release of information that’s not helpful to Hillary will probably not garner much attention. But it should.

The media might not want to talk about Hillary’s dishonesty By the way, Congress may not be able to re-open the case Comey just closed, but as he made clear, they can make a referral against her for perjury related to her congressional testimony. It may be just as difficult to get anyone who works for the Justice Department to charge her, but as a matter of fact Schiff is wrong when he suggests Congress has no power to do anything meaningful with the information. Besides, releasing it would be a meaningful thing to do too. The media might not want to talk about Hillary’s dishonesty, but there might still be a few voters left who’d like to know about it.



Dan Calabrese -- Bio and Archives Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.

{/exp:ce_cache:it}