You mean like looking at the DNC and the Clintons?
Yes, exactly ... with one major difference: there isn't an ongoing criminal investigation targeted towards the Clintons or the DNC.
That should be a clue.
DOJ may be looking into how the Clinton email investigation was handled ... or maybe even her actions as SOS ... but it's not likely to result in any consequences for her ... even if there were something there, it's likely outside the statute of limitations at this point.
And if you're hanging your hopes on the DOJ OIG report, I wouldn't get them up too high ... they've already cleared McCabe once with regards to his recusal ... and if there's some second-guessing (in hindsight) on decisions that were made, it isn't likely to rise to malevolent malfeasance IMO (aka criminal culpability)
It's like Gowdy said (my paraphrase) "Even if you disagree with the judgments made and think they were wrong on the merits, you have to (if you have any honor and integrity and aren't a complete partisan hack) ... have to recognize that those decisions were made in good faith."
IOW: Reasonable people can differ on what to do, given the same facts and circumstances.
There doesn't necessarily have to ALWAYS be nefarious partisan motivations at work - sometimes it's just a difference of opinion.
If I had to guess, I'd say that career civil servants generally are probably a lot less partisan than some imagine them to be.
Also, generally speaking, I would say that they probably have a higher sense of duty to country than to any allegiance to a political party.
That is not something I can say at present for fanatical partisans.
Sent from my iPhone using
EO Forums
