more from Josh It's Getting Embarrassing Listening to the questions from Republicans questioning Hillary Clinton, it's hard not to step back and ask what it is they're even trying to prove or what their point is. The lines of questions are disjointed and they're pressing points she either freely concedes (yes, it was terrible and she's ultimately responsible) or the point of which isn't even clear (why did Sid Blumenthal send you so many emails?). It's not going well for the committee at all. What's most revealing about the testimony so far is that they definitely get that: they know it's going badly for them. And that's led to a rather churlish and defensive tone to the whole proceeding that's further deflated any sense that this is more than a clown show where the clowns are struggling. As I've now said several times, it's a world of difference that this happening post-McCarthy and not pre-McCarthy. The questions wouldn't necessarily have been different. The arguments from the GOP would not have been any better. But now the assumption from the press is that Hillary is on the upswing (both in her poll numbers and on the 'Benghazi' question) and the committee members are on the defensive. At least to a degree, she's been vindicated in this whole drama and the committee has been discredited. If that weren't the case, whatever the fairness or the logic of the questions, the press would have seen the whole drama through the prism of Hillary's on-going undoing. Whether it was fair or made sense would be secondary. But with a different governing narrative the whole things looks different. There's a very different sense of who's winning and losing and that sense has taken root with Hillary and the committee Republicans themselves, which just magnifies the effect. Because of all this, Republican committee members just seemed pissed because this was supposed to be awesome - after all, a committee designed to bring down Hillary and circulate all those numskull conspiracy theories about Chris Stevens wearing a chest cam and how President Obama was watching everything happening live on his iPhone. Hillary's yet to get at all flustered and has even had the opportunity to gently explain to Republican members how the State Department works. She looks poised; they're radiating spittle. It all doesn't help that Chairman Gowdy is such a comical figure. But the real thing is that they're having their big moment - HILLARY ON THE STAND!!! - just as their credibility is collapsing. She's making them regret this is even happening.
Just hold your noise and push the button. That's what I am going to do unless it's Bernie up there against him. I am prepared to go full clown show. I will vote Hillary if anyone other than Trump is standing up there and there's no Bernie.
<iframe src="//giphy.com/embed/3oEduXPPEoGyxXICMo" width="480" height="270" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="http://giphy.com/gifs/3oEduXPPEoGyxXICMo">via GIPHY</a></p>
Hillary looked very defensive and didn't have answers for two key points: 1) Why Blumenthal had such access to her but Ambassador Stevens didn't 2) The false narrative around trying to blame the attack on an anti-Islam film.
Count me in the group that thinks this was bad for Republicans. "The Benghazi Hearings" today were heavily focused on trying to tie her to failed foreign policy in general and questionable associations based on her email. The Republicans barely even tried to make a Benghazi accusation. Elijah Cummings laid the smackdown on the chairman with his first time allotment when he read the direct quote from Gowdy's op-ed stating the "one question he wanted answered" and then proceeded to list the different times Clinton had already answered and let her answer it right there again. Interesting that Gowdy himself didn't ask his "one question." Clinton has had a good couple of weeks.
1) Blumenthal had email acess with Clinton, Stevens had a direct line of contact with the Clinton administration and was always in communication with them. As was so stated by Clinton. 2) This "narrative" is a minor detail
I didn't see anything but I was reading about Cummings and Gowdy going at it. McCarthy as much admitted the hearings were at least partially prolonged for electorally strategic reasons, but Cumming's behavior seemed like time-released cyanide. There was a whole century a and a half where political campaigning didn't require millions in ad buys or lockstep talking points, it'd have been nice if Congress had figured out a way to operate without partisan factions back then.
Wow. Did any of that make sense? <iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GJe_fWH9ISI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> From Wikipedia: [rQUOTEr]The commission was established on November 27, 2002 (442 days after the attack) and their final report was issued on July 22, 2004.[/rQUOTEr] <iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LPXTnsFGNdA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rZseOFpi_kU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Seems like Clinton showed a lot of communication Savvy today in the three hours I watched, and handled the difficult questions like a well practiced lawyer. That will help her in the presidential race. And in the last hour I caught the Chairman saying he has no regrets about the beating he may take over that call, so that sounds like somehow the republicans are taking not only a PR hit, but made s some political mistakes.
