“This investigation is starting again, for political purposes. This is another investigation of Hillary Clinton, long after she’s no longer a presidential candidate, no longer the Secretary of State, apparently there’s more interest in what happened seven years ago with Secretary Clinton than there is in the (phony Trump) investigation. And that’s quite by design.”

-Adam Schiff, Dimwit-California

Let me get this straight…last year, month after month, Democrats like yourself told us over and over and over again that the ONLY reason Republicans and conservatives were asking for accountability for Mrs. Clinton, was purely political, “to defeat her in November”. Remember that? Apparently not. Now you’re telling us that it’s not to defeat her, since dear old granny Clinton is no longer Sec State or a political candidate?

If by “design”, you mean “actual evidence of wrongdoing”, then yes, it’s by design. And there’s far more actual evidence of the Clinton campaign and Clinton and Obama cronies colluding with the Russians than there ever was about Trump. The “dossier” which started the whole “Trump collusion” baloney was apparently bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign and possibly elements of the corrupt Obama administration.

There is also an informant, who has been under wraps since 2009 (for you math impaired liberals, that is LONG before Trump ever announced his run for the presidency), with information about Russian bribery, corruption and collusion with Secretary Clinton and the Obama administration over obtaining US uranium, which through the neglect, incompetence and/or criminal collusion of Hillary and the Obama administration, Russia eventually obtained.

BTW, someone should put this informant on a “suicide” watch, as people who have dirt on Hillary or the Clintons apparently tend to become suicidally depressed.

Dear Adam Schiff, bless his heart, is trying to argue the opposite of what Democrats were bleating all throughout 2016. Why then, according to the brightest minds of Democrats (stop laughing!) would the accusations continue after the election, unless there really was something of substance to cover up, as perhaps witnessed by the largest sudden destruction of smart phones and computer hard drives in recorded history?

The Democrats hitched their wagon to the colossally corrupt Clintons, with all their tremendously famous ethical shortcomings, and are in full damage control mode trying to staunch the bleeding.

The ship is sinking. Tell everyone how shocked, SHOCKED you are over the Clintons’ corruption, then head for the lifeboats.

No wonder people think clowns are scary!

By Proof

CA Rep. Adam Schiff
That's a fair question, isn't it? I mean, there's no real evidence that Obama was falling down drunk, hugging the porcelain phone and calling Ralph, during those eight hours, but then, there's no real evidence that he wasn't either! Given his proclivities to drugs, maybe he reconstituted the Choom Gang? Did Aunt Zeituni bequeath him the family crack pipe?? Somewhere, there's an explanation for what occupied the Commander-in-Chief from the time he heard our Ambassador was under attack, until he popped into his jammies to rest up for a big day of fundraising in Vegas the next day. Problem is, we've never heard it!
Democrats, known for their lack of partisan posturing, (stop laughing!) are telling us that there is no need for another hearing into Benghazi, because there have already been, by their accounting, seven that they've stonewalled, er, participated in!
Democrat Jack and Democrat Jill went up to the Hill,
to fetch a pail of water.
Jack came down with an empty pail, again, and said:
"But I've gone up the Hill seven times now!!!"
Well! That makes all the difference! The problem with the empty bucket headed Democrats, is that there are too many unanswered questions and the questions are by no means new.
As I pointed out in October 29, 2012, the scandal is threefold:
The negligence that preceded the attack.
Who specifically, person or persons, was responsible for the security of the Benghazi compound prior to the attack? Given the known dangers in the region, it is not unreasonable to assume this could reach upwards to the offices of an alert and conscientious Secretary of State or President? How engaged were they in monitoring what was going on in Libya and the region? Secondly, what consequences has that person or persons suffered as a result of this abysmal breach of security? Anyone fired? Demoted? Reassigned?? Make that part of the public record.
(Please don't echo the canard about stingy Republicans and sequestration. The State Dept admitted they had the money and even spent millions for art in foreign embassies. That dog won't hunt!)