(National Sentinel)Â Congress: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has a message for congressional committees investigating “Russian collusion” with President Donald J. Trump, as well as Moscow’s alleged efforts to interfere with the November election:Â Call former President Obama to testify.
Gingrich, in an appearance onÂ FoxÂ News‘ “Hannity,” was responding to reports that Obama and his national security team were aware of Russian attempts to disrupt the election process, but the president elected to do little to intervene - largely because, as host Sean Hannity said, to avoid tainting Hillary Clinton’s expected victory.
PerÂ Breitbart News:
Gingrich responded by saying there was â€œno questionâ€ Congress should call the former president to testify under oath about his handling of potential Russian interference.
â€œThereâ€™s no question that Congress should call the former president in to testify under oath to explain what he was doing and why he was doing it,â€ Gingrich said. â€œThereâ€™s no question that they should build the case from the ground up. Who was doing the investigating? Who was reporting to the president? Who did it go through? What were the meetings like when they decided not to pursue it? I mean, talk about an extraordinary failure of national security.â€
Of course, this all assumes that the narrative - Russian interference - is even true. We know now, after months of leaks, that there isn’t anyÂ there, there when it comes to Trump-Russia “collusion,” because that information would have come out by now, since the FBI has reportedly been investigating the claimed connection for a year.
So it could be that 80 percent or more of theÂ entire Russia narrative has been completely manufactured. That said, RussiaÂ has attempted to subvert our democratic processes for decades, just as we’ve attempted to subvert the Russian political process. SoÂ if Russia’s attempt last yearÂ was something out of the ordinary,Â andÂ Obama did nothing because everyone expected Clinton to win (and ‘Russian interference’ would have tainted her victory), then sure, Congress ought to find out what happened.
But Obama very likely would never respond to any pointed questions regarding his role in all of this, at least not in an open session. Presidents fall under scrutiny all the time for actions they took (or did not take) while in office, but few have ever been called before Congress to answer for them. So we don’t expect that Obama will, either.
Still, Gingrich raises an interesting proposition.