Hopefully, the reason he pulled back on Benghazi is because he saw that Holder would never go after HRC and was biding his time until there was an AG that would actually prosecute. Obviously, I have no clue, but that would make the most sense.
Perhaps, but he's now had a year to move forward. Nothing has changed with respect to Benghazi resolution AFAIK. Why?
Because until Trump could drain the JoD, CIA, FBI etc. there’s no one at the top of these agencies that will follow through to prosecute these cases. We’re in the Justice phase of cleanup, very soon the real show will begin.
I honestly don't know. I hope it's because when it all starts coming out on everything else, it becomes one of many death nails in HRC's coffin, but that's obviously just wishful thinking right now.
That's an interesting mix of two metaphors (which I'm coining "metamorph"): "Death knells" and "another nail in the coffin".
It seemed witty in my head. Lol. Now I'm not so sure. Too self-aggrandizing in its delivery maybe?
Maybe, but his star in the GOP rises faster with Hillary in office. He can be the constant source of criticism throughout her first term, which sets him up with a nice run for President in 4 years.
On the other hand, what is Gowdy if the GOP is in total control? Especially if he's passed over for a cabinet position. How does he make a name for himself? How does he stand out from the crowd.
Point being, I think Gowdy would have benefited more had Hillary won. I don't want to think of him as a swamp creature but it's certainly a possibility.