What kind of moron do you have to be to think this wasn't always political?
Conservatives are
all in a tizzy because soon-to-be-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy admitted to the partisan nature of the bullshit Benghazi committee.
Of course, we all knew the committee was a partisan witch hunt. You'd have to be a moron to think otherwise. In other words, you had to be the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza:
At the time, I wrote a piece headlined: "Hillary Clinton is trying to make the e-mail controversy political. But, really, it isn’t." (Republicans liked that piece then — and now; John Boehner tweeted it out Sunday night.) My conclusion then was that while the Benghazi committee was aware that Clinton was the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, the GOP leadership had been very careful to frame it as simply a fact-finding effort that happened to include the former secretary of state.
You see? The email controversy isn't political because the "GOP leadership had been very careful to frame it" as something else! It's that simple! If you are careful about framing something, it can't possibly be political!
I mean, sure, the entire concept of "framing" is political in nature, but hey, not to Cillizza, sharp-eyed intrepid journalist, who can sniff out frames that aren't political even when they transparently are!
I mean, don't try to pull the wool over Cillizza's eyes, because you'll succeed! Don't try to sneak one past Cillizza, because it'll work!
McCarthy, of course, changed all that with his comments to Hannity.
You see, it was obviously not political because of the GOP's "careful framing," but now that the framing isn't so careful it's obviously political.
More great insights, from one of the dumbest people in political media.