Open thread for Hillary Clinton’s testimony before the Benghazi Committee
Here’s a thread for discussing Clinton’s testimony today.
I will be watching pieces of it. That’s probably more than most Americans will be watching. Most people will be reading the commentary on it and watching selected clips, if that. Their perceptions will be shaped by those whose business it is to shape them.
Speaking of perceptions, already most people feel this is a politically motivated interrogation:
Majorities in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll disapprove of the way Hillary Rodham Clinton has handled questions about the attacks and her conduct using a personal e-mail server while secretary of state.
But a nearly equal majority identify the Republican-led investigation into the events as a politically motivated attempt to damage the former secretary of state rather than an effort to raise legitimate concerns.
If you look at the partisan breakdown of the poll numbers, the vast majority of Republicans disapprove, the vast majority of Democrats don’t, but 55% of Independents also disapprove. And if you look at the change over time on the question of whether the hearings are politically motivated (question 21), many more people think so today than thought so last May (thanks, Rep. McCarthy, Democratic talking points, and the MSM).
This, by the way, is the same poll that showed 51% job approval for Obama, so that tells you a lot about the makeup of the respondents.
There are some other interesting things in that poll, such as question 13, where 60% of people leaning Democratic say that the more they learn about Hillary Clinton the more they like her. My oh my. Respondents who lean Republican were asked the same question of Republican candidates, and the ones who got very strong approval the more people know about them were Carson, Fiorina, and Rubio, and then to a lesser extent Cruz. Trump more or less broke even. But Jeb? Less Jeb-love the more people know him.
But back to the Benghazi hearings. From what I’ve seen, Clinton hasn’t flinched (I think “steely-eyed” is a good description) and will give her supporters exactly what they want.
[ADDENDUM: By the way, Clinton’s ability to hold up under questioning for so many hours will almost certainly have the effect of undermining the argument that she’s too old and tired to be president.]
Justified scrutiny is rarely exclusive of explicit or implicit political motivations. In fact, it is common for them to coexist.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Asking questions of Clinton without the needed evidence to expose her criminal negligence and repeated lying is counter productive.
It strengthens her with the LIVs, rather than weakens her.
From the brief moments I’ve watched, I have to say she’s impressive. I don’t believe a word she says, but she’s going to be very formidable in the general election. She shows the exact right mixture of resolve, sarcasm, and derision of her opponents. Do not underestimate her.
Physicsguy:
Agreed (as I indicated in the ADDENDUM I just added right before I saw your comment).
Geoffrey Britain:
I’m not sure about the LIVs. Don’t they by definition not watch this sort of thing? They might catch some excerpts, of course. And as I indicated, their views will be shaped by the MSM, which will call this a triumph for Hillary.
Haven’t laid a hand on her.
Halftime
HRC 28
GOP 7
But how far can sarcasm and derision of opponents take her? It’s not charming, not winning. I think Gowdy et al have been taking some good hits. It seems much better coordinated than the disastrous earlier hearings.
If this is defined as an endurance test, that’s setting the bar very low.
mizpants:
But the bar is low. Those who already support and admire her just want to be reassured that she’s coherent and has endurance. They already support her policies, and will also vote for her because she’s a woman.
Just watched a few minutes. Hillary is a strong adversary in the legal debate sense. And the Committee Dems sure know on what side their bread is buttered.
Not good, not after all the buildup. The public jury will vote her innocent.
Totalitarianism looms bigger and bigger on our political horizon.
It will soon blot out the sun.
Anyone who believes pequeno Rubio can go against her lives in dreamland.
Name me 2 things that happens on the hill that is NOT political … ok easier name me 1 thing?
The Dems know that and they play the game to the max.
So far her SOS position has been shown at best to have been incompetent. We and her supports have always known that. Incompetence is no reason for a Dem to not vote for her.
When in the presence of an inveterate liar, the inquisitors should avail themselves of preterition*. Each in his turn would state (in his own inimitable manner):
“Mrs. Clinton, how is it that lies and scandal attach themselves to the Clintons as barnacles to a hull? And I’m not here speaking of such as the lies and cover-up over the private eMails in your capacity as Sec of State, or the Asia fundraising scandals — just Benghazi.”
Another:
“Mrs. Clinton, how is it that lies and scandal attach themselves to the Clintons as flies to flypaper? And I’m not here speaking of such as the lies and cover-up over Whitewater and Travelgate— just Benghazi. To what should we ascribe your attraction for lies and scandal. Are you so sticky?”
Another:
“Mrs. Clinton, how is it that lies and scandal attach themselves to the Clintons as metal filings to a magnet? And I’m not here speaking of such as the lies and cover-up over Humagate and Pardongate — just Benghazi. How is it you are such a magnet to lies and scandal?”
Another:
“Mrs. Clinton, how is it that lies and scandal attach themselves to the Clintons as the tides to the moon? And I’m not here speaking of such as the lies and cover-up over the Clinton Foundation scandals and a 26 million dollar slush fund servicing a tunnel between the Foundation and the State Department — just Benghazi. Have you and your husband been cursed with extraordinary bad luck?”
Another:
“Mrs. Clinton, how is it that lies and scandal attach themselves to the Clintons as fever to a swamp? And I’m not here speaking of such as the lies and cover-up over Chinagate and arranging Boeing contracts with Russia after that company made a sizable contribution to your husband. — just Benghazi. How is it you end up always in fetid water?”
Make the association and never let up. Two of every three Party, PAC, and candidate ads should hammer that stake until it penetrates the ether, the zeitgeist, and a ventricle.
*preterition noun
the action of passing over or disregarding a matter, esp. the rhetorical technique of making summary mention of something by professing to omit it.
George Pal:
Would not Hillary’s answer be “It’s the vast right-wing conspiracy out to get me, of which you are obviously a part, as you just demonstrated?”
I don’t believe a word she says, but she’s going to be very formidable in the general election.
and
Hillary is a strong adversary in the legal debate sense.
Yep. And Republicans dismiss this at their peril.
I think the only Republicans who could hold their own against Hillary in a debate, for instance, are Rubio, Fiorina, Cruz, and Christie. Rubio would be the very best because he can draw on his youth and cuteness as well.
Could somebody define “LIV”?. I know I asked this before but I forgot which thread it was.
Harry:
Low Information Voter.
Those of us who loathe her will continue to loathe her
and her stalwarts will *blabber* that she showed
*them * up. We just have to believe that sufficient numbers of fence sitters are sufficiently disgusted
with this SOP from the trashy Clintons.
What I have watched (About 2 hours worth) has been a nothing ball. The dems are totally in the bag for HRC, and the Repubs are very bad at getting to answers that matter.
I want to know:
1.Why was no one fired when the necessary Benghazi security had been denied? HRC can claim she deferred to security experts, but as Truman says, “The Buck stops here.” Leaders are responsible for failures – even when they claim to have no knowledge of the reason for the failure. At least they fire subordinates who have screwed up as a message for others that competence matters.
2. Who decided to blame the attacks in Benghazi on a video, when there is e-mail evidence that HRC called them attacks by al-Qaeda on the night they happened? The reason for doing so (The meme, “General Motors is alive, bin Laden is dead, and Al Qaeda is on the run” was being used in the election campaign. Blaming the attacks on al Qaeda made that claim look bad.) was mentioned by Rep. Jordan in his questioning, but he didn’t get to the question of WHO decided to change the story? Inquiring minds want to know.
3. Both Obama and HRC vowed that there would be retribution for the attacks. Why have those vows not been carried out? There has been one arrest. What message does that send to other terrorists who want to attack our embassies? Actions speak louder than words.
4. Why have the families of those who were killed and wounded in Benghazi not been compensated for their losses? It’s been three years and they are still being left out in the cold. That was mentioned in the questioning, but there was no full court press for an answer.
Thanks Neo. I should have suspected that.
Just reprehensible that Hillary says Stevens was joking and that she can almost imagine him with a smile on his face when he was asking for more security.
HRC is a liar and liars have to lie. Her lying is not finished with these hearings. Her lying will go on throughout the campaign all the way to the election. But, I’m not so sure but what the totality of her lies may catch up with her. Sooner or later liars hit a tipping point.
I don’t think this hearing will hurt Hillary among her supporters. Too few are interested enough or informed enough to follow the questioning. And yes, the MSMwill cover only things that show Hillary in a good light. I think we will have to wait for the final report and hope that there are some good clips from the hearings that can be used against Hillary in the election.
And while this is not an investigation into the e-mails, her incompetence there certainly raises questions about her ability to handle the cyberwar.
Neo-neocon,
“Would not Hillary’s answer be “It’s the vast right-wing conspiracy out to get me…”
Indeed it would. And the answer:
“That conspiracy, Mrs. Clinton, was as much a fabrication of your creative duplicity as your duplicity is substantially of your own construction.
The ‘inveterate liar’ makes a hash of it, when the only defense is “you lie”.
neo @ 2:49,
Yes, exactly. The committee’s inability to present compelling evidence, due to the Obama administration’s obstructionism, will allow Clinton to present her appearance as due to craven partisanship. Since the questioning will not prove Clinton to be lying, the MSM can characterize it as a triumph for Hillary, thus shaping the LIVs viewpoint. All of this is why the committee is actually helping her.
What the committee could sorely use is its own Sam Ervin, who, though Harvard-educated, presented himself as “a simple country lawyer” on the Watergate committee and won over just about everybody.
“There are some other interesting things in that poll, such as question 13, where 60% of people leaning Democratic say that the more they learn about Hillary Clinton the more they like her. My oh my. ”
Most people, including Democrats, also believe Hillary Clinton is a liar. So, when you put two and two together, you have to understand that most Democrats see her dishonesty as a plus.
They’re going to praise her performance today not because she told the truth, she clearly didn’t, but because she was able to get away with it.
Let us not discount a sympathy “vote” for Mrs. Clinton. Those badgering her came off as partisan and mean; Mrs. Clinton (it galls me to confess this) came off as poised and longsuffering.
She is a congenital and experienced liar, and often a good one at that, especially when the lies are to the unsuspecting (the LIVs). Too often, the Republicans need to figure out when to quit when they’re behind.
Suggested line of questioning by Chairman Gowdy (CG):
CG: Madame Secretary (MS), Did you send an e-mail to your daughter on Sept 11, 2012 stating that the Benghazi attacks were carried out by an al Qaeda type group?
MS: I believe that’s correct.
CG: Yes or no?
MS: Ah, yes.
CG: Did you tell the Egyptian President on Sept. 12, 2012 that the attacks had nothing to do with the U-Tube video?
MS: My recall of that isn’t perfect, but that is what the transcript seems to say.
CG: Yes or no?
MS: Ah, er, yes.
CG: Was one of the main talking points of President Obama’s campaign that “General Motors is alive, bin Laden is dead, and al Qaeda is on the run?”
MS: I suppose you could say that.
CG: Yes or no?
MS: Have it your way – yes.
CG: Was it true that you and the President considered the anti- Gaddafi campaign in Libya to be a great success?
MS: Well, it was a great success. Gaddafi, the tyrant and abuser of his people, was deposed and killed.
CG: What had happened in Libya since Gaddafi’s overthrow?
MS: The elected government was struggling to try to govern the country. Something that’s not unusual in such situations.
CG: Would you say that it had fallen into anarchy?
MS: I suppose you could say that.
CG: Yes or no?
MS: Yes. (Scowls)
CG: Had Libya become a haven for Islamist terror groups such as al Qaeda?
MS: We didn’t believe that to be true, We had no convincing evidence of it at the time.
CG: But it was unstable because of Islamist activities?
MS: Yes.
CG: Was it not true that this attack put your claims about the success of your policy in Libya in a bad light? And that it further refuted the claim by President Obama that al Qaeda was on the run?
MS: I suppose you could say that if you are looking to score political points.
CG: Yes or no?
MS: Is this an inquiry or a prosecution?
CG: We are inquiring into the facts as they existed at the time of the attack. Simple answers without qualifiers will speed the process along.
Now, MS, did the Dept. of State issue a press release at 2200 hours on Sept. 11, 2015 blaming the U-Tube video for the attack?
MS: I had no knowledge of that until the next day.
CG: Who made the decision to issue that release?
MS: I’m not sure. It was coordinated with the White House I believe. Things were happening vary fast at the time. There was a “fog of war” atmosphere.
CG: Did you publically maintain the position that the video was responsible for the attacks until Sept 21, 2015?
MS: Yes.
CG: In doing so, were you carrying out orders from your boss, the President?
MS: No, that was my belief.
CG: And you say that in the face of evidence that you privately told your daughter, Chelsea, and the Egyptian President on Sept 11th and 12th, that it was a pre-meditated attack by an al Qaeda type group? MS, there is a conflict in your testimony that indicates to an objective observer that you are not telling the truth about this. Now, can you tell me who you were lying to, the American public or your daughter, and why you did it?
MS: (Raises her voice) At this point, what difference does it make? This issue has long been resolved. Your desire to attack me politically is the only reason we’re here.
CG: Is it your final answer that you are a person who believes it is okay to deceive the citizens in matters of public affairs?
MS: You and your committee are a part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that has been attacking me from the day I first came to Washington. I refuse to cooperate any further with this inquisition.
CG: Thank you, MS.