The Face Of Evil.

Satisfied? No. You get no satisfaction from predicting the outcome of The Hearing. Instead, you experience that queasy feeling in your core, something akin to fear, because all along you hoped beyond hope you were wrong. It doesn’t take long for queasy to become disgust, followed by outrage, then a smoldering anger. The interrogators thought a preponderance of evidence would trap the woman in a corner, and have her stammering, stuttering and squirming. Gowdy, the relentless Prosecutor, wasn’t prepared for an adversary as ruthless, cunning and remorseless as the renowned Sherlock Holmes’ arch enemy Dr. Moriarty. He evidently forgot that, if Lying were an Olympic  event, Hillary Clinton’s trophy case would be heaped with gold medals. Which, by the way, he could have said, at the very least, to create a media buzz. Instead, he and the other committee members followed the expected line of questioning. Armed with “new information,” they wanted the world to know that Clinton lied about the Video; they wanted to prove she lied about the Video. God help us all, Matilda, everyone on the planet already knew she lied, and more important, too many people couldn’t care less. The Video was old news. And lying isn’t a sin, not in the Obama White House. Lying is a Right of Passage for any self-respecting villain. And Willy and Hillary made it popular, as modern day Supervillains. Why else would a servile media applaud her performance? The media had a single interest — simply to see if she could continue to lie with impunity, without blinking. She won because she sat regally composed, with smug smile, cold eyes, air of superiority, measured, friendly, non-combative and perfectly reasonable. She lied about lying, she knew she was lying, the audience knew she was lying (her mouth was opened) and she seemed to revel in the knowledge. The media ate it up.  And the Committee droned on, waiting . . . waiting . . . waiting . . . for what? Confession?  Following months of preparation, the Committee blew it by taking its eye off the ball — off the real issue of Benghazi — that the US State Department under Hillary Clinton, with knowledge and forethought, refused to rescue Americans under terrorist attack. Before any introductions, before any testimony, before any questions, the Committee should have taken the first hour to project  Bret Baier’s documentary 13 Hours At Benghazi. Then Gowdy should have done what prosecutors do. Make this woman explain why four men died because of her traitorous disregard and careless incompetence. If you remember, she took “full responsibility” for Benghazi even though she (said) wasn’t responsible for Embassy security. “What does ‘full responsibility’ mean to you, Madam?” Four men are dead and others live with life-long injury. Who is accountable? “Excuse me, Madam, you are currently waging a campaign to become the Nation’s Commander In Chief. How, in good conscience, can you expect the military to respect someone who abandoned her people on the field of battle?” If nothing else, one Committee member should have put an opinion on the permanent record and should have put it to her directly. “Madam, I must suggest to you that by qualification, character and performance, you are unworthy to hold any public office, much less Commander in Chief of our nation’s finest.” Of course, this sort of thinking is all fantasy. Congressional decorum would never allow such an insult. Too bad. So you must be disappointed in Gowdy. Based on his previous dogged interrogations of lesser bureaucrats, you expected nothing less than a prosecutorial juggernaut. But he stared at the face of Evil.  And gave her a pass.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *