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.

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.

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.

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.

“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”.