Skip to content

Can You Hearing Me Now?

Lee Judge
© Lee Judge

After several Freudian slips confirming that the latest Benghazi Hearings are exactly what everyone expected – a partisan political witch hunt designed to hurt Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, the committee stupidly went ahead with their 11-hour long grilling of Clinton, live on TV.

Various mainstream media outlets declared Clinton the winner. NBC News said “As a matter of pure political theater, yesterday’s Benghazi committee hearing was a victory for Hillary Clinton and an overwhelming defeat for House Republicans.” The Washington Post headline was “Hillary Clinton triumphed at the Benghazi hearing by not losing her cool.”

Amazingly enough, even Fox News – who have always been the major cheerleaders for investigating Benghazi – agreed. Apparently even they are tired of the endless hearings. Even before the hearing was over, Ed Henry said on Fox “In terms of the narrative on Benghazi, there was no major new development that rocked her side of the story, that changes this in some way. What you have here is another big test for Hillary Clinton, and another big test that she appears to have passed.” Henry also said that Clinton “looked presidential and was in command” and called the hearings a “total wipeout” for GOP members. Greta van Susteren agreed, and said that Clinton was acting more like the politician she had watched over the years than the tentative, stumbling Clinton of this campaign so far.

Other conservative media said similar things. For example, Erick Erickson of Red State:

The hearings are a waste of time because everything about it is politicized and nothing is going to happen. There will be no scalp collection.

Columnist Byron York in the Washington Examiner:

A hearing billed as an epic, High Noon-style confrontation—granted, the hype came from the media, not Republican committee members themselves—instead turned out to be a somewhat interesting look at a few limited aspects of the Benghazi affair. In other words, no big deal. And that is very, very good news for Hillary Clinton.

Stephen Hayes in The Weekly Standard:

The coverage of the hearings—from the earliest tweets to the final page-one wraps—focused almost entirely on the style of Clinton’s performance rather than the substance of her testimony. And it must be said: She was impressive.


Even Republican Congressman Trey Gowdy, who is in charge of the hearings, admitted “I don’t know that she testified that much differently today than she has the previous time she testified.” What is that saying about doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results?



  1. wildwood wrote:

    I can not fathom the mindset that makes them think that they are appealing to the masses with this nonsense. I think their insular lives and them being surrounded with people equally as blinded makes them believe that they are on the right path. It remains, for me, to be jaw-droppingly incredible no matter how often they do it. I think they applying that old saying that if you say something often enough, etc.

    Sunday, October 25, 2015 at 5:34 pm | Permalink
  2. Iron Knee wrote:

    Actually, it is pretty easy to understand. Even if people believe that the Benghazi investigation is totally bogus and partisan, just having Clinton’s name associated over and over with “scandal” (no matter how manufactured) means that many voters feel, on an emotional level they may not understand, that she cannot be trusted. McCarthy was right – in this way the Republicans have succeeded in lowering her approval ratings significantly. And they will keep doing it until it stops working.

    Sunday, October 25, 2015 at 6:56 pm | Permalink