I have been trying to digest this whole scandal (Benghazi) in light of the most recent hearings and it seems like they haven't really been able to pin anything on her. I mean as the head of her department she bears a general responsibility for what happened under her leadership, but the allegations of serious misconduct seem to have gone unproven. Some media have spoken of the situation as if they had proof Clinton was directly responsible but it never materialized. Instead we have had a bunch of hearings that really just seemed like a political attack. Unfortunately this last hearing made Clinton look good and the republicans on the panel look like idiots/douche bags.

In the end it is possible that Clinton knew what was going on and is lying but lacking proof, what else are we going to do about it? Endless hearings on the chance she might slip up? Seems like this is an issue the republicans should drop. The email server scandal is seeming to be more damaging with more proof.

She was not on trial.  This is the first time she gave testimony on the attacks UNDER OATH.

There have been 7 other investigations. 

None of the previous investigators knew of her private server and the fact she had all of her official emails stored on it for over 2 years after leaving office. 

None of the other investigations ever requested, much less reviewed, Ambassador Stephens' emails.

Her answers demonstrated her stories were inconsistent and contradictory, especially based on emails now in evidence.

Her absence during the attack was not part of the record until this hearing.  Obama's absence is still in question.  You can delegate authority, but you can not delegate responsibility.

There are still many gaps in the record of that attack.  Hopefully the gaps will be filled in.

There were 600 requests from Benghazi for additional security personnel and material.  Clinton said not a single request ever made it to her.  She calls Stephens a good friend, but she has no record of ever receiving an email from him regarding security.  Meanwhile, Blumenthal is sending and receiving emails to Clinton all the time.

This is not a trial.  It's a fact finding hearing.  The committee still have much more to do.  If you were looking for a "gotcha" moment, then you missed a couple.  There were several times when she was caught lying, but she stuck to her script.

Mr. Whittle is on point, as usual.

Let's not get mired down in whether or not Hillary Clinton is guilty. She's obviously, painfully obviously, guilty.

What we need to focus on is the real point of this video; How is she getting away with it? More importantly, what are we going, or are willing, to do about it?

What Mr. Whittle points out is that our Constitution and our laws are not just being disregarded, they're purposely not being enforced for those "Chosen Few". Hillary Clinton isn't the problem here, she's the symptom. The problem is a government that operates at the whim of one person. A person that instructs the DOJ on who they prosecute based on the ideology of the person in charge. A person that uses government agencies as weapons against all opposition. A person that laughs at the idea of being held accountable, because that person is the ultimate authority.

In short, a tyrant.

This is NOT how our government is supposed to be run. It's a mistake to focus on individuals as this cannot be accomplished without congress and the bureaucracy being complicit. To attempt to take it one position at a time institutes a game of "Whack-a Mole" that we can't possibly win. They know this and are counting on our unwillingness to face the unpleasant realities that action of this sort will surely bring.

Electing a president that will abide by, and enforce the Constitution is a good start. It will take much more to return us to the nation we once were.

Apathy and complacence have lead us to this point. Action is the only means to change it. Simply whining and bitching about what "should" be will no longer due.  If we want it, we'll have to take it.

What we need to focus on is the real point of this video; How is she getting away with it?

(This is a general response, but I picked your one statement as a starting point)

It seems like she is getting away with it from a lack of evidence needed to convict her.

 but we also don't know whether the emails are in tact, or whether the important ones got deleted.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't catch any lies from the testimony, at least not one that is real consequential. If Clinton lied about it being about a video, what does that prove? It doesn't show she was willfully negligent about providing more security to the consulate. I am not sure what she had to gain by blaming it on a video instead of blaming it on terrorists, or even just saying "we don't know yet" but it doesn't amount to a crime or something worthy of 8 congressional hearings.

Dude. I appreciate the fact that you've taken on the role of "Devils Advocate" here, but, really?

Sure, there's a "lack of evidence". She, and the current administration have had YEARS to cover it up and destroy or obfuscate anything damning. The fact that it happened at all is evidence of incompetence, at the very least. The fact that she has failed to show even one iota of remorse, even going so far as to say "What difference at this point does it make?" tells us a great deal about her lack of character. A recurring theme in her career.

Yep, you're right. We don't "know" whether the emails are intact. That's the problem. She violated federal law by not turning over her "intact" server, that she shouldn't have been using to begin with, immediately upon resigning her office. She should be prosecuted for this as well as obstruction of justice for deleting ANY of the emails that were stored on that server before it was turned over. She gave up her right to privacy in this respect the moment she chose to use her personal server for the people's business.

When is a lie "consequential"? Gee, I don't know, maybe when it points to the very distinct possibility that the person is being dishonest about something? Maybe when it shows a very distinct probability that there is a conspiracy to cover up something? If it was inconsequential why lie about it? Perhaps we should just consider it part of her "nature" and ignore it.

The fact that this woman is anywhere near the office of President disgusts me.

Combine Hillary's ability to avoid accountability with the news this week the DOJ is not going to charge Lois Lerner for anything having to do with the IRS targeting of Conservative Groups applying for non-profit status in an election year, and we see that as long as you take care of Obama, he and his administration will take care of you.

If she didn't violate any security procedures as some suggest, then every fed employee from a GS-3 , WT-1 to GM-14 and SES should be able to take work e-mails and store it on their private computer, use non-secure e-mail  or take home classified material which has no security markings  and not be subject to any admin or criminal prosecution.   Employees have lost their security clearance and ultimately their jobs because they accidentally used the wrong GOVERNMENT e-mail system with documents containing classified material and this is miniscule compared to what Hillary has done.
When the media talks about the security classifications, they make it seem as though NFORN and Confidential are no biggies, which is false.   
There is no further need to provide the "smoking gun" for Hillary.   What is now known as fact should at the least bar her from any position (POTUS) that will come in contact with classified material and any benefits from her time as Sec. of State be revoked.   The more appropriate consequence is she should be charged and sentenced.

[Dude. I appreciate the fact that you've taken on the role of "Devils Advocate" here, but, really?

Sure, there's a "lack of evidence". She, and the current administration have had YEARS to cover it up and destroy or obfuscate anything damning. The fact that it happened at all is evidence of incompetence, at the very least. The fact that she has failed to show even one iota of remorse, even going so far as to say "What difference at this point does it make?" tells us a great deal about her lack of character. A recurring theme in her career.

Yep, you're right. We don't "know" whether the emails are intact. That's the problem. She violated federal law by not turning over her "intact" server, that she shouldn't have been using to begin with, immediately upon resigning her office. She should be prosecuted for this as well as obstruction of justice for deleting ANY of the emails that were stored on that server before it was turned over. She gave up her right to privacy in this respect the moment she chose to use her personal server for the people's business.

When is a lie "consequential"? Gee, I don't know, maybe when it points to the very distinct possibility that the person is being dishonest about something? Maybe when it shows a very distinct probability that there is a conspiracy to cover up something? If it was inconsequential why lie about it? Perhaps we should just consider it part of her "nature" and ignore it.

The fact that this woman is anywhere near the office of President disgusts me.