WASHINGTON -- For weeks, Republicans have defended their special investigation into the deadly 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya as not politically motivated.
Even after Republicans described the committee’s inquiry, which has already lasted longer than the 1970s Watergate investigation, as one designed to hurt Clinton's presidential bid, members insist it isn’t about politics or Clinton’s emails.
But at times Thursday, that was almost impossible to believe. We rounded up the moments that showcase just how political this entire thing really is.
Rep. Elijah Cummings does a 2016 name-check
"Last weekend, the chairman told the Republican colleagues to shut up and stop talking about the Select Committee. What I want to know is this…Why tell the Republicans to shut up when they are telling the truth, but not when they are attacking Secretary Clinton with reckless accusations that are demonstrably false? Why not tell them to shut up then? Carly Fiorina has said that Secretary Clinton has blood on her hands. Mike Huckabee accused her of ignoring the warning calls from dying Americans in Benghazi. Senator Rand Paul said Benghazi was a 3 a.m. phone call that she never picked up. And Senator Lindsey Graham tweeted, where the hell were you on the night of the Benghazi attack? Everyone on this panel knows these accusations are baseless, from our own investigation and all those before it. Yet Republican members of this Select Committee remain silent."
Rep. Susan Brooks and her two piles of emails
"Drawing on what you just said, that very few, but no requests for Benghazi came to your attention, I'd like to show you something. This pile represents the emails that you sent or received about Libya in 2011, from February through December of 2011. This pile represents the emails you sent or received from early 2012 until the day of the attack. There are 795 emails in this pile. We've counted them. There's 67 emails in this pile in 2012. And I'm troubled by what I see here. And so, my questions relate to these piles."
Rep. Adam Smith launched Rep. Peter Roskam’s 2016 presidential campaign
"Mr. Roskam's questions, I found to be the most interesting, basically, I don't know, it was like he was running for president. He wanted to debate you on overall Libya policy and why we got in there in the first place. And that's debatable, and I think you will argue that quite well, but that's not about the attack on Benghazi."
Rep. Jim Jordan suggests that a terrorist attack would have hurt the administration in a re-election year
"You picked the video narrative. You picked the one with no evidence. And you did it because Libya was supposed to be -- and Mr. Roskam pointed out, this great success story for the Obama White House and the Clinton State Department. And a key campaign theme that year was GM's alive, bin Laden's dead, Al Qaida's on the run. And now you have a terrorist attack, and it's a terrorist attack in Libya, and it's just 56 days before an election. You can live with a protest about a video. That won't hurt you. But a terrorist attack will. So you can't be square with the American people."
Rep. Peter Roskam defines the 'Clinton Doctrine'
