The German Supreme Court on hearing Snowden in the Parliament's NSA-investigation committee

I don't understand the essay. This is just some low-level political maneuvering between the Chancellor and her incapable opposition. The parliamentary performance is utterly unimportant: no one thinks that Edward Snowden is going to be given asylum in Germany. Nor are the legal ancillaries to the conduct of ordinary politics of any lasting significance. So the draft reads like a category mistake (treating law as a separate object from politics, which might just be insane German legitimism) about something too small to be important at all.

The route to improvement is to begin by showing why all this matters. If something is really happening here beyond the largely incompetent performance of political theater, what is the something? Why does it matter? Put that in the top of the piece, rather than some pseudo-portentous deadline, so that the reader can find out from the beginning why the repulsive details are important, in the hope that she will continue to find the consequent discussion of them worth reading.