The left felt that inquiries into “Benghazi” were unwarranted. As the investigation was done it was in fact unfounded. The actual “scandal” as far as I could tell with Benghazi were two scandals, neither of which got much press. The first part isn’t actually actionable, but should be scandalous. That was the part in which the administration and cabinet on the night the scandal happened, purely because it didn’t fit the foreign policy narrative they were trying to sell, decided to lie about the cause and what occurred. They knew clearly immediately that this was an organized attack, yet repeatedly told the public that these “riots” were a reaction to a year old video exposing and mocking abhorrent practices that Egyptian Muslims had done against Coptic Christians in Egypt. The actually actionable piece was another bold face lie by Ms Clinton who under oath at Congress claimed to know nothing and have no input or knowledge about the security measures at the Embassy. This was in fact against the law, as Congress had enacted a law that all embassy security needed sign-off by the Secretary of State after, I think, the Cole bombing. So. She had no knowledge (under oath) of security measures for which she was legally required to have personal responsibility. Seems to me that’s not strictly, or not-strictly, legal.
Now, in parallel, the Dems are pushing for investigations into Mr Trump and the current administration’s Russian connection. Nobody, if you ask them, thinks anything the Russians did affected the election outcome. What little evidence has been made public is very weak. Sometimes you see, “We see this person talked to a Russian ambassador”. Uhm, that’s not actually actionable and more importantly what is an ambassador’s job? An ambassador’s job is to make contact with officials in the government in the county he/she is posted within to address issues relevant to the relations between the two states. That an ambassador talked to people in or likely to be in a position of influence in the government isn’t surprising. It’s expected. Furthermore, on the face of it, it was probably more in Russia’s interest that Ms Clinton be elected over Mr Trump. It is likely that, like the press and the left, a Clinton landslide was what they expected and therefore what would their “tampering” motive be? What Russia might have wanted as well, was to weaken the position of whomever was elected. Oddly enough, just as in the cold war period, the left continues its role as useful idiots and acts apparently unknowingly to support the Russian regime (well, to be honest “unknowing” wasn’t really a factor in the 70s and 80s … idiots however still applied).
So. What is the goal of the Democrats here? Do they really believe collusion with Russia? On what basis and to what end? That part never reaches their statements on the matter and I suspect isn’t one they’ve considered.