[The Hill] The competing partisan echo chambers eerily strike the same chords.From the left: The investigation into the death of four Americans in Benghazi back in 2012 was a Sienfeldian investigation into nothing. In fact, the right was simply serving us all up a big nothing burger.
And from the right: The investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia is nothing more than a partisan witch-hunt. The left hasn’t accepted the results of a lawfully held election; ergo, the appointment of a special prosecutor.
Yes, the partisan bickering and finger-pointing can be so insufferably exhausting. The promises of "swamp-draining" ‐ Nancy Pelosi during her 2006 ascendancy to House Speaker and more recently, Donald Trump’s signature stump speech line ‐ really just signals more of the same.
So, I make the following demand with a bit of advised caution. History inside the Beltway has a habit of repeating itself.
But with all due haste, a special prosecutor needs to be appointed to the "closed" Hillary Rodham email investigation.
I can hear the cacophony of howling now ‐ Here we go again, yet another undeserved attack on the Clintons. Or, maybe this ‐ Republicans just can’t leave it alone. She was exonerated by no less an authority than the former FBI Director!
But in recent days, following the revelation that then FBI Director James B. Comey had already drafted an "exoneration speech" some two months before his infamous July 5 public statement, there has been a steadily building hue and cry from many corners that a special prosecutor needs to look into the case.
Comey’s decision, it appears, had been formed prior to FBI agents having had an opportunity to interview Clinton and a number of her top aides. On the heels of the inexplicable and unprecedented granting of head-scratching conditions to the Clinton team, came Comey’s decision not to charge, well before key witnesses were interviewed. Why?