(In front of the House)? I think she never answered anything, dancing around all the questions. Plus, lots of “ums”-she really sounded tired. For someone who has tons of aides and advisers, she seems to have a lot of trouble recalling things.
What did you think of the performance?
Perhaps she was tired of being asked the same questions 1,000 times, and being expected to come up with different answers.
She did just fine.
Wow, Ralph- I’m really surprised that you thought she did so poorly. I mean, you’ve given her *such *benefit of the doubt in previous threads. Hey, maybe the *next *Benghazi committee will give you the answers you’re looking for.
Personally, I thought she did pretty damn well. Honestly, I’m not that big a fan of her, but damned if all the Republican flailing in this matter isn’t making her look more Presidential.
She did great, thanks for asking.
That was indeed a “Performance”.
I don’t live in the US of A. Did this Performance have a name? Date? Maybe I could view it. Gracias
As with all of your other threads, ralph, you have really nailed the nuances and demonstrated a solid and sophisticated grasp of complex issues. You’ve certainly given us plenty to think about!
I thought she looked very sincere and innocent of all charges. Just like any other psychopath could pull off.
I’m reading a lot of praise from liberal blog commenters. The ones that strike me the most are ardent Sanders supporters who say they now feel much more comfortable in voting for Clinton should she be the nominee. That, I think, is an interesting possible effect.
I liked how 650 emails (requesting more security) NEVER reached her highness’s desk. Gives new meaning to the term “leadership”. WE don’t need a president anymore-why elect her anyway? Lets just establish a monarchy and be done with it.
Sounds good. I look forward to your perspicacious “what did you think of the queen’s performance at her coronation?” thread.
It was an 11 hour hearing, sure you have the time?
Frankly, I have more comments about the performance of the committee. It think a lot of it was a pretty blatant attempt to wear her down and exhaust her until she make a misstep, at which point her political enemies could scream GOTCHA!
Apparently the moment never came.
I thought she did OK. Someone remind me what she’s supposed to be guilty of, again?
OTOH, I consider the OP’s performance to be substandard.
I think she did very well. She is very smart. I’m not sure I ever really appreciated how smart she is until now. So, she improved in my estimation.
Some of those Republicans sure do hate her. I was concerned for the health of a few of them.
Hey, is Benghazi a scandal yet?
Is that what the investigation was about, the quality of her leadership? For a job she doesn’t have anymore?
How curious that it is so vitally important to assess the performance of someone who already resigned from the job. One might think there is an ulterior motive to attacking the quality of her leadership… Nah!
Believe or not, I have not followed every nuance of the Benghazi investigations, so I have no idea if this is true or if those 650 email messages were even addressed to her. But either way, yes, it’s plausible that she didn’t read them. Even in my company, plenty of people at various levels don’t read every email message in their inbox. Frankly no one here has the time, so I can well imagine that the US Secretary of State similarly does not have the time to read each and every email message that crosses her desk. Isn’t that what delegation is for?
I give Tenzig Norgay most of the credit.
When hasn’t it never not been?
Wasn’t Ben Ghazi that guy who starred in Run for Your Life?