*Note to prospective readers:  This post was published shortly after the Oversight Committee Hearings on Hilary Clinton’s emails. A couple days later, for a number of reasons, I pulled it; however, given today’s press release, I am moved to re-publish. Readers may (and, will) draw their own conclusions.

******

Watching the Oversight Committee Hearings, I can’t help but think – and, who is with me, here? :

Why is it that, every time Comey is questioned ( at times with remarkable candor and clarity and logic and penetrating insight by more than one Representative), he makes frequent declarations that attempt to dogmatically assert his motivations. But, these assertions sometimes contain bold disclaimers regarding, well, the very things he actually did! And, when he is pinned, he hands off responsibility to another entity, with equal fervor insisting that said entity should claim responsibility for specific act.

Why does he passionately assert that he and his organization (the FBI) are committed to non-partisanship, possessing no “inside the beltway mentality”, when the facts suggest precisely otherwise?  Why does he declare: “If I did that, it would be  [ the very thing about which he is accused ]!” (But…..that….IS  what he did!)

Is this whole show intended to render some kind of cosmetic legitimacy to his actions, to leave in the hearts and minds of oblivious Americans some sense that the issue has been “officially” addressed so that it can be put to bed?

Because, to my ears and eyes, this is what is really happening: Committee Representatives are asking all the right questions, laying out sound and solid arguments. THEY are making the case!  But, what will the outcome be? Will Comey ever, throughout the course of these proceedings, ever bow to any of the arguments or questions they present? No!  He’ll just prove to those in power that he can hold up under an inquisition. There he goes again: “It is my intent to treat everyone fairly; my goal is to aspire to [ this] . ” He will only prove that he knows how to skirt and/or neutralize any question that, when actually answered, would indict his actions.

This reminds me of that other legal loophole that one finds within the creative property licensing industry. Agencies declare that they “do not accept unsolicited material.” This is their legal position. In this way, should some dumb bunny send a screenplay without being invited to do so, said created work can, in fact, be eagerly devoured, parsed out, and completely marauded with impunity. In short – no legal case can be made against the agency, because said agency “does not accept unsolicited material.” See what ahm sayin’, heah?

So, FBI Director Comey sits before his accusers, his investigators, all of whom are defeated even before they open their mouths. All of this, in the interests of “preserving public perception of our system of justice.”

I call bull puckey.

The sticky kind.

I do, your Honor.

Anybody share my perceptions, in any small part? Please – weigh in. I have all day.

Thank you!

.

.

.

© Ruth Ann Scanzillo  7/7/16   All rights those of the author, whose name appears above this line. Thank you for weighing in, using the Comment option below.

littlebarefeetblog.com