Republican members of the House Select Committee on Benghazi hammered Hillary Clinton Thursday on aspects of her State Department tenure that reflect problems with her presidential candidacy.
Democrats on the committee spent much of their time lauding Clinton’s leadership during a highly-anticipated hearing that, to the contrary, highlighted her strengths.
The result was a virtual tie that will likely leave both sides claiming victory as the committee itself heads into an uncertain future.
Clinton responded to questions about her push for military intervention in Libya, her detachment from diplomatic security decisions and her behind-the-scenes relationship to a divisive Democratic operative, among other things related to the 2012 terror attack.
Related Story: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2574118/
Few of those questions exposed details that were not already known, but they drew attention to weaknesses that have plagued Clinton throughout her presidential campaign.
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., openly questioned the Democrats’ continued participation in the investigation late Thursday afternoon, blasting the majority for lines of inquiry he felt were unfair as the hearing dragged on into the evening.
Schiff echoed the sentiments of Democrats on and off the committee who have called for an end to the Benghazi panel on the grounds that it has been twisted into a political crusade against Clinton.
Republicans did manage to land some blows on the former secretary of state amid questions that few could characterize as nonpartisan.
Throughout the day-long hearing, Clinton’s calm and relentlessly methodical responses failed to deviate from much of what she has said and written previously about the Benghazi attack. The Democratic front-runner’s testimony gave her a platform to showcase the skills that have allowed her to survive controversies for decades.
Observers credited Clinton with using the hearing as an opportunity to look presidential.
But Republicans raised several issues that gave Clinton trouble, including her insistence that an anti-Muslim YouTube clip played a role in sparking the violence despite a body of evidence debunking that narrative.
Clinton’s inability to address some of their questions was masked by her media savvy in testimony that frustrated Republican attempts to ambush her with contradictory facts.
Diplomatic Security
The former secretary of state faced criticism over requests for more security from officials in Libya that went unanswered in 2012.
While Clinton and panel Democrats noted she was not personally involved in those denials, Republicans pressed Clinton on why security requests did not make it to her desk.
During the hearing, Clinton said requests for more security “were rightly handled by security professionals in the department.”
“I was not going to second guess them,” she said of the decisions made by diplomatic security officials.
Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., noted officials in Libya had logged more than 600 requests for more security when violence in the country was on the rise, but that security levels remained relatively constant.
Pompeo and other Republicans asked Clinton why conversations about messaging strategies with her press staff consumed a significant proportion of her correspondence while security requests from Amb. Chris Stevens and others did not.
Those questions underscored common concerns that Clinton is preoccupied with her public image, to the detriment of her ability to lead.
Critics have often pointed out Clinton’s tendency to prioritize press over policy, a charge that surfaced in clashes with committee members over her inattention to the deteriorating security situation in Libya.
Sidney Blumenthal
Some of the most heated exchanges Thursday came during questions about Sidney Blumenthal, her longtime confidant.
Pompeo said Blumenthal sent Clinton 150 emails related to Libya, noting his correspondence made up the bulk of her communications about the country in the run-up to Benghazi.
Clinton’s relationship with Blumenthal has become fodder for Republicans who point to it as further evidence of her habit of relying on shady characters for guidance. She has defended his access to her about Libya by explaining that he was simply a friend who sent her “unsolicited” advice.
During one of the most contentious conversations of the hearing, Chairman Trey Gowdy cited an email in which Clinton asked Blumenthal, “What are you hearing now?” about Libya.
“If you’re the one asking him for information, how does that square with the definition of unsolicited?” Gowdy said.
“I have no idea,” Clinton said. “They started out as unsolicited.”
That statement was a departure from previous characterizations of the Blumenthal memos, which she has long described as missives from a personal friend.
From Clinton Foundation donors to perennial campaign aides, Clinton has a history of helping the small circle of people that surround her in ways that rub some the wrong way. Her connection to Blumenthal, while only tangentially related to Benghazi, shed light on the extent Clinton tapped insiders behind the scenes from a position of power.
Libya Intervention
Clinton’s strong support of the U.S. intervention in Libya poses a problem for her progressive campaign for presidency.
A personal advocate for military involvement in 2011, Clinton has since sought to characterize her push as a team effort in the administration.
Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., pressed Clinton on an email from Jake Sullivan, a former top aide, in which Sullivan outlined a list of reasons why and how Clinton could take credit for steering the U.S. into the conflict.
Clinton is widely seen to have driven the administration’s participation in the NATO coalition that besieged Libya with airstrikes in 2011.
During her testimony, Clinton emphasized the collaborative nature of the coalition intervention that bombed Libya.
“There were many in the State Department who believed it was very much in America’s interest and in furtherance of our values” to get involved in Libya, Clinton said. She noted “the first planes that flew were French planes.”
“The bulk of the work militarily was done by the Europeans and the Arabs,” she added.
Democrats and Republicans alike have slammed Clinton over a number of positions she has flipped to better align with what voters want. Like her unpopular vote in favor of the Iraq war, Clinton’s shift on the Libya intervention may offer critics another opportunity to accuse her of flip-flopping on an important issue during a political campaign.
