Odd Praise for Hillary's Benghazi Hearing Performance

The Media narrative coming out from the Benghazi hearings was and still is that Hillary performed well. In other words, ignore the facts that the public learned Thursday about the cover up of a terror attack 50 days before an election and focus on Hillary's performance. Matt Taibbi went so far as crediting Hillary for not running on stage and hitting Trey Gowdy over the head. 

This to me is odd for many reasons:

1) Thousands of people have appeared in front of grilling investigative committees and almost all of them - especially current or former senior government officials - "perform" well. Be it the Watergate investigations, the 9/11 Commission, Plamegate or Iran-Contra. Witnesses are told to sit there, take the abuse, be polite and just wait for it to be over. Hillary did the same. Big whoop.

2) Many times, such as Jack Abramoff a decade ago, witnesses get hammered from both sides of the committee. Hillary however, kept on getting encouragement, praise and reinforcements from the Democrats on the committee. In fact, Chuck Todd said Sunday that only 16 of the 68 questions/commentary from the Democrats were "challenging" to Hillary. The "11 hours of questioning" was actually less than 10 hours; half of which was praise and support that few witnesses get.

3) During the previous hearings, the media praised Hillary when she lost it ("What difference at this point does it make"). Blowing up showed that Hillary has the energy to be in the arena. This time around when Hillary held steady, she gets praised for not losing it. Again, I am not sure when performance at these hearings became relevant. But the Media obviously will praise Hillary for performance regardless how she actually performs.

4) Hillary’s staff of 5-10 people kept on pushing her notes on almost every question she was asked. Witnesses turn to their counsel here/there during hearings if a question borders on legality. Sometimes they turn to staff for a reminder of a date. But Hillary kept on getting notes from staff on almost every question. This shows that Hillary is shockingly incompetent. She can't send a fax (proven by her emails); recharge an iPad (proven by her emails); oversee Libya (proven by her emails) or answer Congressional committee questions without ongoing assistance from staff. This is a shocking level of incompetence on Hillary's part and should reinforce the doubts about her ability to lead a country.

So much focus is put on performance because the media/Dems know that the substance of the committee hearings should be a career-ender; just ask Alberto Gonzales what happened to him for firing 6 US attorneys, or Chris Christie when his staffers closed a bridge. Here we have a cover up of a terror attack. A filmmaker was put behind bars for 11 months to help with this cover up; an arrest which I think even Nixon did not do in his cover up of a burglary.

Yossi is on Twitter @YossiGestetner and can be reached ‪Yossi@YossiGestetner.Com

The Media narrative coming out from the Benghazi hearings was and still is that Hillary performed well. In other words, ignore the facts that the public learned Thursday about the cover up of a terror attack 50 days before an election and focus on Hillary's performance. Matt Taibbi went so far as crediting Hillary for not running on stage and hitting Trey Gowdy over the head. 

This to me is odd for many reasons:

1) Thousands of people have appeared in front of grilling investigative committees and almost all of them - especially current or former senior government officials - "perform" well. Be it the Watergate investigations, the 9/11 Commission, Plamegate or Iran-Contra. Witnesses are told to sit there, take the abuse, be polite and just wait for it to be over. Hillary did the same. Big whoop.

2) Many times, such as Jack Abramoff a decade ago, witnesses get hammered from both sides of the committee. Hillary however, kept on getting encouragement, praise and reinforcements from the Democrats on the committee. In fact, Chuck Todd said Sunday that only 16 of the 68 questions/commentary from the Democrats were "challenging" to Hillary. The "11 hours of questioning" was actually less than 10 hours; half of which was praise and support that few witnesses get.

3) During the previous hearings, the media praised Hillary when she lost it ("What difference at this point does it make"). Blowing up showed that Hillary has the energy to be in the arena. This time around when Hillary held steady, she gets praised for not losing it. Again, I am not sure when performance at these hearings became relevant. But the Media obviously will praise Hillary for performance regardless how she actually performs.

4) Hillary’s staff of 5-10 people kept on pushing her notes on almost every question she was asked. Witnesses turn to their counsel here/there during hearings if a question borders on legality. Sometimes they turn to staff for a reminder of a date. But Hillary kept on getting notes from staff on almost every question. This shows that Hillary is shockingly incompetent. She can't send a fax (proven by her emails); recharge an iPad (proven by her emails); oversee Libya (proven by her emails) or answer Congressional committee questions without ongoing assistance from staff. This is a shocking level of incompetence on Hillary's part and should reinforce the doubts about her ability to lead a country.

So much focus is put on performance because the media/Dems know that the substance of the committee hearings should be a career-ender; just ask Alberto Gonzales what happened to him for firing 6 US attorneys, or Chris Christie when his staffers closed a bridge. Here we have a cover up of a terror attack. A filmmaker was put behind bars for 11 months to help with this cover up; an arrest which I think even Nixon did not do in his cover up of a burglary.

Yossi is on Twitter @YossiGestetner and can be reached ‪Yossi@YossiGestetner.Com