Battered by the bad publicity that comes from people noticing you're engaged in a partisan witch hunt, the Benghazi Committee Republicans are now facing their highest-profile hearing so far, with Hillary Clinton.
The Republicans have a delicate balancing act. Their goal is to take Clinton down, and they'll also draw the anger of other Republicans if they're seen as going easy on her (defined as anything short of prolonged verbal abuse). But now that their political angle is common knowledge, their committee's chance at retaining a shred of legitimacy depends on keeping the witch hunt from being too obvious. It's a difficult challenge. But:
“Trey Gowdy doesn’t give a sh-t about any of” the accusations, said a GOP source close to the probe when asked whether the criticism would affect the panel’s line of questioning. “He’s focused on his job. He’s a prosecutor. … He’s going to go after all these things whether or not they call him partisan.”
See, guys, this is the kind of thing that gets you in trouble. Yes, Trey Gowdy has a background as a prosecutor, but he is not a prosecutor in this case. Or he's not supposed to be, anyway. He is supposed to be investigating, and there's an important distinction. Investigators look for facts and are open to possibilities including that no one needs to be prosecuted. Prosecutors have decided they know the facts and are committed to proving a specific person guilty. The Benghazi Republicans are in trouble because they appear to be functioning as prosecutors, not investigators. So saying that Gowdy is a non-shit-giving bad-ass who won't be intimidated by the bad press because he's a prosecutor who's going to do his job is saying that this committee is, in fact, the partisan witch hunt Democrats have long labeled it.
Anonymous posturing aside, Politico reports that the Republicans believe they've cracked the code for disguising the depth of their anti-Clinton agenda:
In a series of interviews, panel members and aides said they’re planning to touch on everything from Clinton’s hopes and dreams for Libya after the fall of Muammar Qadhafi to why she wasn’t aware of numerous requests for increased security by slain U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. Those were ultimately denied by State, and Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. compound in Benghazi.
They’ll also inquire about a number of Clinton emails they say they’ve asked for but that Clinton never provided to State. And they’re going to press Clinton about statements they think call her credibility into question, such as Clinton’s claim that advice about Libya she got from her longtime ally Sid Blumenthal was “unsolicited.”
That's the same Sid Blumenthal who the Benghazi Committee questioned
from 10:30 to 6:30 before asking him any questions about Benghazi.
The Benghazi Republicans know they need to try to restrain themselves in public and give the appearance of a legitimate investigatory body that isn't wasting millions of dollars of congressional budget trying to bring down a presidential candidate. But can they restrain themselves? We'll find out Thursday.