I can't decide whether representative Adam Schiff is trying to be funny or is he has just been unconscious for the last 25 years.
From the New York Times:
Disband the Benghazi Committee
By ADAM B. SCHIFF
SEPT. 4, 2015
...Congressman Schiff, we are long, long past the point when trying to appeal to Republican's sense of fairness or concern about future repercussions is anything other than quaint oratory delivered to an empty house.
Since its formation, the Select Committee on Benghazi has been aimless and slow moving, not knowing what it was looking for or where. It has acted in a deeply partisan way, frequently failing to consult or even to inform Democratic members before taking action, and selectively leaking information to the press. After 16 months and more than $4 million, the committee has gained no additional insight into the attacks in Benghazi. It has nothing new to tell the families of those killed or the American people.
But it does have emails. Lots of emails. Some of them are from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But none of her emails tell us anything of consequence regarding the events of Sept. 11, 2012. They don’t substantiate the bogus theory that the State Department ordered the military to “stand down” or that there was gun running, or that the secretary somehow interfered with the security provided at the diplomatic facility or annex.
Nor were any of the secretary’s emails marked classified at the time she received them. Some in the intelligence community believe that a subset of them should have been, a conclusion with which the State Department disagrees. That’s not an uncommon clash of views. As the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, I am deeply interested in making sure that all classified information is protected. And yet, as a member of the Select Committee charged with finding out the truth about the attacks, I am appalled at how much we have lost sight of the mission — if indeed that was ever the point.
Whatever their original purpose, the Select Committee’s leaders appear no longer to have any interest in Benghazi, except as the tragic events of that day may be used as a cudgel against the likely Democratic nominee for president.
The committee is solely concerned with damaging her candidacy, searching for something, anything, that can be insinuated against her. With all of the committee’s obsessive focus on Mrs. Clinton, you would think that she was a witness to the killings, instead of half a world away.
Some of my colleagues think this is just good politics. And already, other ambitious committee leaders are hoping to get in on the act with their own inquiries and attacks on Mrs. Clinton. This is a terrible mistake, and it would be no less offensive if it were a Democratic majority going after a Republican candidate. Do we really want to see future select committees ginned up to attack other likely presidential nominees?
This is a party which copes with contradictions by simply denying the past ever happened, and does not believe the future will ever come.
And trying to shame them out of using their elected offices to conduct blatantly partisan witch-hunts is as useless as trying to shame a dog out of licking his balls.