Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi testimony, in all its layered meaning, overpowers cogent analysis and even neutral description. It was unsettling, strange, riveting—and without any true precedent: A front-runner for her party’s presidential nomination, and the first woman ever to be a serious contender for the job, interrogated, often with unconcealed hostility, for the better part of a day, with breaks for in-studio score-keeping, followed by postmortems, and spin on all sides. Even as committee Republicans took hard hits—“disturbing” (David Gergen on CNN), gripped in “psychosis” (David Brooks on PBS NewsHour)—conservatives dug in: “Hillary Clinton is corrupt, and vomits up lies,” Mark Steyn said on Hugh Hewitt’s radio program. “You can hear the contempt in her voice when she answers questions, she believes she is above questioning.”
Either way, it has been Hillary Clinton’s most vivid and accomplished public moment, eclipsing her solid performance in the first debate. Great politicians, Murray Kempton once observed, “are capable of as many roles as there are sins to commit.” Hillary proved herself the Mirren or Streep of the political witness stand—cast as defendant, an all-too familiar role in our politics. After so many years, both Clintons evoke many feelings, but the strongest is of déjà vu. And in Hillary’s case each new controversy or scandal or pseudo-scandal—we’re never sure— arrives trailing gusts of previous ones. We—and she—have been here before. Nothing about the Benghazi theater was routine, but it was familiar nevertheless. She brought along her troupe as well. There was David Kendall, the Washington lawyer whose collaboration dates back to the Whitewater investigations, seated behind her in the hearing room, impassive as ever. And there was Sidney Blumenthal, Hillary’s voluble e-mail buddy, not seen but quoted with almost comical zeal by Trey Gowdy and company.
4 comments:
As a 27 year old staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate investigation, Hillary Rodham [now Hillary Rodham Clinton] was fired by her supervisor, lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman. When reporters asked why, Zeifman said, "Because she is a liar. She is an unethical, dishonest lawyer, she conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the Committee and the rules of confidentiality."
She was fired from her first law job for lack of ethics.
And ever since has rejected personal ethical behavior, true to the narcissistic creed.
Not that anyone cares about the truth on this site but the comment at 12:22 has been proven to be entirely false. Zeifman was NEVER her supervisor and she was not fired. He was on the other side of the political argument during Watergate and painted Hillary with the same broad brush he painted everyone else on the committee that didn't agree with him. This is easily fact checked.
Post a Comment