Hillary Clinton Faces the Benghazi Committee- The Theatre of the Absurd

“Absurd”, in a word, is possibly the best way- given the confines of the English language- to describe Hillary Clinton’s long-awaited appearance before the House Benghazi Committee, yesterday. The former first lady, senator and Secretary of State rightfully deserves an Academy Award for Best Actress, given her portrayal of the oh-so-caring, oh-so-thoughtful, oh-so beleaguered victim of those horrible Republican meanies bent on destroying her candidacy.

Not that she didn’t have the supporting cast of sycophantic “ass-clowns” supporting her performance, as the Democrat members of the Committee were practically drooling in her presence, stepping all over one another, and stepping on their fellow Republican committee members, in an all-out effort to run interference for their “lady-in-waiting”, who just happens to be their best, and only, shot at retaining the White House within the confines of their own party.

It was quite absurd, really- especially when the oh-so-sanctimonious Democrat members scolded the Republicans for wasting, yes, WASTING some four-and-a-half million dollars investigating the attacks on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Heaven help us all when Democrats, of all people, lecture Republicans about wasting taxpayers’ money- or have they not heard of their own president’s program that spent five hundred million dollars… to train five…count ‘em… FIVE… Syrian “freedom fighters” ?

It was quite absurd, really- that these same Democrat representatives spent their time kvetching about the committee’s inability to uncover new information about what happened before, during, and after the raid on Benghazi- especially since they spent most of their allotted time making speeches and postulating about the unfairness of it all, and defaming their Republican colleagues on the Committee, instead of questioning the witness, herself. It’s rather hard to uncover new information while making speeches, isn’t it? The only Democrat who asked any substantive questions was Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), and even there it was obvious that Hillary knew exactly what she was going to ask, as Hillary answered her questions with prepared statements, reading from a script on the table in front of her.

The Republicans on the committee, by comparison, acted professionally- asking probing questions about the processes State Department officials used (or didn’t use, for that matter) to address the security requests…there were over 600 of them…by Hillary’s “friend”, slain Ambassador Christopher Stevens, and the comparative access to Hillary Clinton of the slain ambassador juxtaposed against her “long-time friend” Sidney Blumenthal. The former had practically no access, while the latter had unlimited access, according to her own testimony. When pressed as to why no administrative action was taken against her underlings, who were directly responsible for refusing the ambassador’s request for additional security, Hillary responded with a lame excuse of being constrained by federal law- an actual “first” for her, considering the hundreds of occasions, over the years, when Hillary has not felt so constrained. Having repeatedly maintained that all of the e-mails she received from Blumenthal were unsolicited, she changed this stance to “well, unsolicited, at first” when the evidence presented showed that she constantly solicited more and more e-mails from Blumenthal- a man who she was told not to engage with, on any official basis, by the Obama Administration, while pleading complete ignorance of the hundreds of requests, by Ambassador Stevens, to enhance security at the Benghazi mission.

Sitting behind Mrs. Clinton were half a dozen of her own attorneys, most notably Cheryl Mills, who was at one time concurrently Mrs. Clinton’s personal attorney and Chief of Staff during Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, and none other than David E. Kendall, who was her husband’s own attorney during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and also represented former President Clinton during the trial Paula Jones vs William Jefferson Clinton , where the former president perjured himself, resulting in his impeachment. This begs the question that if this committee hearing was only a “political witch hunt”, as asserted by Hillary and Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D-MD), then why the need for all of these lawyers? Answer- the ongoing FBI investigation into Hillary’s e-mail server. Potentially, Mrs. Clinton has already opened herself up to charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, by repeating that she had turned over all of the relevant e-mails, when clearly, she hasn’t. Whether or not the Obama Administration will eventually allow the FBI to pursue an eventual indictment is beside the point. It is obvious to anyone with an impartial mind that Mrs. Clinton is a pathological and serial liar.

This was never more perfectly illustrated when it was revealed during yesterday’s hearing that, at the very moment and instant she was telling Americans and, specifically, the families of the slain personnel, that the attack was the result of a protest mob, spurred on by an internet video insulting the Islamic prophet Muhammed, she notified the Egyptian Prime Minister, and her own daughter, Chelsea, the attack was an organized, pre-planned raid by an Al Quaida-affiliated terrorist network, having absolutely nothing to do with the video. It was also revealed that she started the bogus video narrative while the attack was still under way, on the night of September 11, 2012.

Nothing new, huh?… Well, unlike the seven preceding hearings which probed bits and pieces of the Benghazi attack, this one had the benefit of her own e-mails as evidence- e-mails she and the State Department spent three years trying not to reveal and attempting to defy Congressional subpoenas.

Democrats should ask themselves honestly (assuming that they are capable of doing so) that if, indeed, the roles were reversed, and this was a Republican Secretary of State being questioned by a House Committee led by a Democrat majority, would they have been as appalled as they professed to being yesterday?

Perhaps this is the one question that needn’t be asked….

-Drew Nickell, 23 October 2015

©2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.