According to the New York Times, in one of Clinton’s statements to the committee, she said “I’ve lost more sleep than all of you put together”. Last Thursday’s exercise in futility wasn’t a hearing.
Advertisement
The hearing was called to determine what happened in Benghazi and how to prevent future tragedies in our stations around the world. But does anyone really believe that’s what the Republicans were up to last week?
Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the chair of the committee Republicans had set up in the wake of the deadly September 2012 terrorist attack on a State Department compound in Benghazi, Libya, in which four Americans including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya were slain, declared at the hearing’s opening that its goal was exclusively to pursue “the truth” of why the attack succeeded.
“As we all know, Representative Kevin McCarthy, Speaker Boehner’s second in command and the chairman’s close friend, admitted that they established the select committee to drive down Secretary Clinton’s poll numbers”. “In terms of her testimony?”
She came away looking most “presidential” indeed.
All but the most partisan Republicans generally agreed that Clinton answered questions in a professional and reassuring manner while Republican committee members resorted to harsh attacks when it became obvious that their efforts would not find a “smoking gun” that would prove misconduct by Clinton. But these so-called watchdogs had nearly no interest in the substance, and were allergic to the notion that Clinton has lied on Benghazi – shamelessly, repeatedly, even in the faces of the families of the men who fell in the consulate attacks.
It was back to the 1990s.
Pompeo and other Republicans cited multiple requests for security, many of them rejected by Clinton’s top officials.
Clinton was far from absent in the debate itself, with most of the candidates on stage slamming her and President Obama’s policies. What did this have to do with Benghazi?
Did Clinton convey her knowledge of “a planned attack – not a protest” to her confidante Susan Rice, then the US ambassador to the United Nations?
“If you’re calling her a liar by saying she perpetuated a lie, then why do you think she did that?” Mrs Clinton kept a cool head under scorching questions, which at times seemed aimed at pushing her over the edge.
The Republicans played right into the Democratic narrative, using the information gained during their questioning to attack Hillary’s ethics and lack of moral compass rather than letting the facts speak for themselves.
Or as Markos Moulitsas, the founder of the liberal website Daily Kos, tweeted during the hearing: “Hillary was “meh” with significant portion of the activist left”. However, they are also aware that the GOP has no intention of closing the book on the issue, even though there was no dramatic change after the marathon grilling of the former Secretary of State.
The letter writer who referred to Ms. Clinton as “presidential” was prescient, but because she was acting more like President Richard Nixon, who tried to cover up the Watergate burglary.
Publications like Bloomberg News reported that Conservatives view the Benghazi hearing as a “bust”.
Whether or not her private e-mail system contained classified information also came under fire by GOP members of the congressional committee, with no startling developments.
Advertisement
Now whether Hillary Clinton gets prosecuted for violating the Espionage Act is about as likely as a sighting of the Loch Ness monster in Times Square.
