Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Hillary Clinton's Testimony Before Benghazi Select Committee Reviewed; Interview with Presidential Candidate Senator Rand Paul; Lincoln Chafee Drops Out of Race. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired October 23, 2015 - 08:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[08:00:00] CHAD MYERS, AMS METEOROLOGIST: -- tornado that can be five or six miles wide just tearing up the coast as it makes landfall. Now, the hurricane winds are only at 30 miles from the center, but after that they begin to drop off. But can you imagine being in the center of this eye where the winds are doing 10 to 15 miles per hour, and then get hid by the eye wall doing 200 miles per hour. It will be a devastating blow.

Just north of Manzanillo, Mexico, south of Puerto Vallarta, in an area that's not as populated as we could see in other places along Mexico's coast, but Manzanillo will take a very, very direct hit. And also the amount of rainfall that could come in could be 18 inches in the mountain areas guys. And all that rain will have to run back down. We'll have mud slides, we'll have flash flooding. This is going to be a major impact.

Understand that hurricane Andrew, the worst thing I can remember from Katrina and Camille, but hurricane Andrew hitting the islands and hitting Homestead at 165 is 35 miles an hour slower than where we are right here with Patricia.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: That is so scary, Chad, and thanks for giving us that perspective, because obviously we all remember the destruction wrought by Katrina and Andrew. And wasn't there an incident last year in Cabo where Americans and tourists had to be evacuated there?

MYERS: Absolutely. The Mexican coast, the west coast does get quite a few hurricanes. And these hurricanes can get very big. Because of the El Nino going on right now, the water down there is about two to three degrees warmer than it should be right now, even though we're certainly square in the middle of hurricane season. That warm water from El Nino probably just pushed this slighty over the edge to be the biggest storm on record.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, Chad, scheduled to hit the coast of Mexico maybe as soon as tonight. Any impact on the U.S.?

MYERS: Certainly, I think so. This is going to get torn up in the Sierra Madres. That is a major mountain range through here just like the Rocky Mountains of Mexico. So that is going to take a lot of it up. But there will be still be some moisture left over when this gets passed those Sierra Madres that will get into Texas, maybe Arkansas, Louisiana as the storm goes by, as that moisture goes by on Saturday and Sunday. But we're already going to see in Texas maybe eight to 10 inches of rain from a completely separate storm. So I don't even want to add two plus eight and get 10, because then all of a sudden you're adding two plus 10 and getting 12, and that could make flooding even in the U.S.

CAMEROTA: All right, Chad, thanks so much for all of the warnings. Obviously, we'll stay on it. We'll bring all the developments to the viewers. You will be back soon with us.

Meanwhile, our ore top story. And that of course is Hillary Clinton's 11 hour testimony in front of the Benghazi testimony. Some committee members sparred amongst themselves, but Clinton for the most part kept her cool. So what does this mean for the White House bid? CNN senior political correspondent Brianna Keilar is live in Washington. What is the takeaway, Brianna?

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Her campaign is feeling pretty good about what this means for a White House bid. This was a feat of stamina yesterday. And one Clinton campaign aide said to me "That was a president sitting there." So no doubt headquarters in Brooklyn very ecstatic. But Republicans still found Clinton, perhaps not surprisingly, evasive.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HILLARY CLINTON, (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I really don't care what you all say about me. It doesn't bother me a bit.

KEILAR: Hillary Clinton emerging from her Congressional grilling after enduring over eight hours of aggressive questioning.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm not asking what the ARB did. I'm asking what you did.

CLINTON: I followed the law, congressman.

KEILAR: By the Benghazi committee's Republican members.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's not answering the question. "Search terms" means terms. What terms did you use? What were the date parameters? With what date you start? What was the end date and the e-mails in between there we are going to look at?

CLINTON: Congressman, I asked my attorneys to oversee the process. I did not look over their shoulder.

KEILAR: In the end the committee broke very little new ground as Republicans tried to paint Clinton as directly responsible for negligent in the assault on U.S. mission in Benghazi that claimed the lives of U.S. Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans. They highlighted requests for extra security at the facility that were denied by State Department officials.

REP. PETER ROSKAM, (R) SELECT COMMITTEE ON BENGHAZI: Here is basically what happened to their requests. They were torn up. KEILAR: And questioned whether Clinton was involved enough in

diplomatic efforts in the country where she had pushed for U.S. intervention.

REP. SUSAN BROOKS, (R) SELECT COMMITTEE ON BENGHAZI: Did you ever talk to Ambassador Stevens when all of this was going on in the hot bed of Libya? That is a yes or no question Madam Secretary, I'm sorry.

CLINTON: I believe I did.

BROOKS: When was that?

CLINTON: I don't recall.

KEILAR: There is still no smoking gun. Even committee chairman Trey Gowdy said he didn't learn much more from Clinton.

REP. TREY GOWDY, (R) SOUTH CAROLINA: I don't know that she testified that much differently today than she has previous times she's testified.

KEILAR: Democrats insisted the hearing was a partisan witch hunt.

REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS, (D) RANKING MEMBER, SELECT COMMITTEE ON BENGHAZI: I don't know what we want from you. Do we want to bash you over and over again until you get tired until we do get the gotcha moment that he's talking about? We're better than that.

[08:05:00] KEILAR: As the top Democrat on the committee tangled with Chairman Gowdy, Clinton could be seen smiling.

GOWDY: Why is it you only want Mr. Blumenthal's transcript released?

CUMMINGS: I'd like to have all of them released.

KEILAR: The argument was over testimony from Sidney Blumenthal, Clinton's longtime friend and lightning rod, who frequently sent her un-sourced intelligence assessments on Libya while having a business in the country.

GOWDY: I think it is eminently fair to ask why Sidney Blumenthal had unfettered access to you, Madam Secretary, with whatever he wanted to talk about, and there is not a single, solitary e-mail to or from you to or from Ambassador Stevens.

KEILAR: At one point Clinton let her emotions show.

CLINTON: I've thought more about this than all of you put together. I've lost more sleep than all of you put together.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KEILAR: And today Hillary Clinton will be in friendlier territory. Speaking to the DNC's Women's Leadership Forum this morning here in Washington D.C. And then she'll cross the Potomac River and just go several miles to Alexandria, Virginia, for a campaign event, and she's going to be there with a longtime friend, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe. Of course, Hillary Clinton, popular in Northern Virginia. It is definitely Democratic territory. Alisyn?

CAMEROTA: Absolutely. All right, Brianna, thanks so much for all of that background.

During the Benghazi hearing Democrat Elijah Cummings slammed Republican presidential candidates who he said spread false information about Hillary Clinton. Here is just part of what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CUMMINGS: Senator Rand Paul said Benghazi was a 3:00 a.m. phone call that she never picked up. Everyone on this panel knows these accusations are baseless from our own investigation and all of those before it. Yet Republican members of this select committee remain silent.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Republican presidential candidate Senator Rand Paul joins us now. We should mention he has a new book out, "Our Presidents and Their Prayers, Proclamations of Faith by America's Leaders." Senator, thanks so much for being here.

RAND PAUL, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you.

CAMEROTA: Do you want to respond to Congressman Cummings?

PAUL: I think her 3:00 a.m. phone call was when Colonel Wood called and said we're in danger of being overrun. We need to stay in charge of Benghazi. And she was in charge of the State Department. She had them come home. And I think she left you are ambassador defenseless, and that is an incredibly important question. And that was her 3:00 a.m. phone call. She advertised against President Obama, said he wouldn't know what to do in a 3:00 a.m. phone call. I don't think she did know what to do.

CAMEROTA: Do you feel that was addressed yesterday?

PAUL: A little bit. There was some discussion of it. But to me it's always been the most important thing is for nine months leading up to the assassination in Benghazi there were multiple requests, not one or two.

CAMEROTA: She says they didn't come to her, that those are handled at a lower level.

PAUL: I know. But she's in charge. She was the secretary of state. She's in charge of all of that. When you are president of the United States there are a lot of people that work for you. But ultimately if we go to war, we have a disaster in war, the president is to blame. The president does deserve both credit and blame because they are in charge.

CAMEROTA: You know what is interesting about this conversation is that it mirrors the same one that some people like Donald Trump are having about George W. Bush during the 9/11. How much responsibility do presidents or secretaries of state bear for a surprise terror attack? Do you see these as parallel? Is George W. Bush responsible for 9/11 in the same way?

PAUL: Well, I think ultimately woe have to start with the terrorists are responsible.

CAMEROTA: Of course.

PAUL: And then once we get beyond that there are some parallels. We looked at very extensively 9/11, what led up to 9/11, and to me what was always the biggest mistake is we caught the 20th hijacker a month in advance of 9/11 and we didn't do anything about it. So ultimately yes, the FBI made some mistakes.

CAMEROTA: And did George W. Bush?

PAUL: Well, ultimately he is responsible for the FBI and for all of government. But some of it bleeds over into Bill Clinton as well. So there is a lot of blame to go around for these things. I think in this case specific requests were made for more security and they were denied, and that is on Hillary Clinton's watch.

CAMEROTA: Let's talk about your take away from yesterday, this 11 hour marathon. I know you didn't get to see all of it. You are doing something called running for president. But what's interesting is that you are a small government guy. You rail against big government. You rail against waste. Has this been a proper use of $4.5 million taxpayer dollars?

PAUL: I think we do have to learn from history. So, for example, we should learn that Hillary's war in Libya was a disaster for our country and has made us less safe. It's made the region more chaotic. If we don't learn that, how are we going to know what to do now in Syria? But the same goes for the Iraq War. I think George Bush's decision to go into Iraq for the first Iraq war was a big mistake. And I think they're parallel. Both times we toppled a secular dictator. Both times we got chaos. We still have chaos 15 years after the Iraq war.

[08:10:00] CAMEROTA: OK, so these hearings, this 11 hour hearing and how it's gone on for some 18 months, that has been an adequate use of $4.5 taxpayer million?

PAUL: I think it is a way to learn from history. And the most important thing is we need to know that when we have a mission overseas we have to defend it. And it needs to have adequate security. And I think what we're learning is under Hillary Clinton's watch she did not provide the adequate security even though it was requested not one time, not two times, but probably a dozen times they asked for more help and it was denied by Hillary Clinton.

CAMEROTA: So you don't see this as Republican overreach and a waste of time and money?

PAUL: If we learn from history I think it is really important because we're always talking about getting back involved in the Middle East. And I think it's important to learn not only did Hillary Clinton not defend Benghazi and the ambassador, she started the war. She was part it. That's too harsh. She didn't start the war, but she encouraged our involvement in it. She was probably the key pronate in the admission trying to bet President Obama to go to war in Libya and that was a terrible mistake. That was a terrible, terrible mistake.

CAMEROTA: What do you think that all of this and yesterday's hearing does for her presidential campaign?

PAUL: I don't think it's good for her. I've always said that she's going to have a tough time convincing the American public that she will defend our country because she sent an ambassador into harm's way and didn't provide him with adequate defense.

CAMEROTA: But do you think as so many pundits, and even conservative ones we've had on this morning, say she so comported herself against their arguing. They were squabbling. Some of the Republicans were squabbling with Elijah Cummings. And that she seemed more composed. Do you think that helps her?

PAUL: You know, I think she ran this strong campaign against President Obama saying she'd be there for the 3:00 a.m. moment. I do think this was her 3:00 a.m. moment and when she was called didn't provided adequate security in Benghazi and she's never getting away from that. I think it will preclude her from being commander in chief. I don't think the nation will elect her because she didn't provide an adequate defense for the ambassador.

CAMEROTA: You are focused on something different than a lot of Republicans including Jim Jordan whom we had on a couple of hours ago. They are focused on the videotape. They are focuses on why she said one thing, that it was a terror attack, and then later the administration said it was a videotape. What do you think of that that keeps continuing, was it a videotape, was it a terror attack? Was it political spin?

PAUL: I guess why I'm less interested in what happened in the spin afterwards is I kind of assume politicians to be deceitful and to spin what they do to try to put nit a favorable light. So what is important to me is, why didn't she read the cables? I had one or two questions when I cross-examined her in my committee, and I said did you read the cables, and she admitted she didn't. But I don't think it is enough to slough this off to underlings and say it was somebody else's fault. I was busy traveling. The problem is that Libya was one of the most dangerous places in the world and it was her job to know the ambassador was pleading for more help and that the State Department turned him down.

CAMEROTA: But the fact is some like Jim Jordan are so fixated on the video, are they wasting time?

PAUL: I think it's important to know the whole story. One of the things that came yesterday was she was sending e-mails to her daughter that night saying it was a terrorist attack. It is kind of curious that for a whole week, and they went on all the Sunday shows saying it was about some movie when they knew initially and she's already sending an e-mail to her daughter saying it is a terrorist attack. Did someone decide let's have a concerted push back saying this wasn't terrorism?

CAMEROTA: I know one of the things that you've wondered about in terms of this whole Benghazi thing is why Ambassador Chris Stevens was even in Benghazi. She addressed that yesterday. She said that he went because he wanted to do some reconnaissance. He wanted to get some information out of an insurgency that was happening there. Does that adequately answer your question?

PAUL: My question has always been what is the CIA annex doing there? She claimed Yemen in her testimony that the CIA annex nothing to do with providing arms into Syria. This is very important. She claimed she has no knowledge and that it wasn't occurring, that the CIA annex had nothing to do with funneling arms into Syria. I don't believe that to be true. I don't think she's being honest with us. And I think the CIA annex did have something to do with routing arms into Syria.

Whether or not it was the CIA or they were using a proxy, they were gathering up arms in Libya. They were looking for 15,000 man pads, surface to air missiles, and they were gathering them up. But what were they doing, and were they a conduit to arms into Syria, in I think they were.

CAMEROTA: She addressed that yesterday. Let's play that moment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE POMPEO, (R) KANSAS: Were you aware or are you aware of any efforts by the U.S. government in Libya to provide any weapons either directly or indirectly or through a cutout to any rebels or militias or opposition to Gaddafi's forces?

CLINTON: That was a very long question. And I think the answer is no.

POMPEO: Were you aware or are you aware of any U.S. efforts by the U.S. government in Libya to provide any weapons directly or indirectly or through a cutout to any Syrian rebels or militias or opposition to Syrian forces?

CLINTON: No.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: She said no. Is she lying?

[08:15:00] PAUL: Here's the interesting thing. The "New York Times" has reported years and years that the CIA has been funneling arms into Syria.

What was the CIA annex doing in Libya? That question wasn't completely addressed there.

CAMEROTA: I mean, she says -- obviously, she didn't run the CIA. She ran the State Department --

(CROSSTALK)

PAUL: But I can tell you that what I've read in the newspaper is consistent also what people are talking about in hearings in Washington. The CIA has been involved with getting arms into Syria. That's well known knowledge.

What was the CIA annex doing in Libya -- the reason it's an important question is why would the ambassador go to a remote consulate, very near a CIA annex. What was going on in the CIA annex?

There were reports in "The New York Times" and other paper that a Turkish ship left Libya a day or two before full of arms and they have interviews with the Syrian rebels getting the arms off the ship, saying, you know, disputing over who got what arms.

So, this is all out there and the fact that she's still denying it, she could say it's classified. She can't talk about it. But the fact that she's denying it, I wonder whether or not she's telling the truth.

CAMEROTA: One quick question about the presidential race and the new poll that has come out, "The Des Moines Register" just this morning. Let me show you how voters in Iowa caucuses are feeling. Ben Carson has leapfrogged Donald Trump. This is the second time in two days that we've seen this. He's at 28 percent. Donald Trump is at 19 percent. You are I believe fifth at 5 percent.

What do you make of these numbers?

PAUL: I think the polls are still a jumble. I think they are very loose polls of people leaning one way or another. I think they will change many times. Herman Cain was leading at this point in 2012. In 2008, Rudy Giuliani was up five months and never won the primary.

So, I think it's still very early. We like the fact that we're in the middle. We seemed to think we're going up a little bit. We hope that that's true.

But we have a strong ground game. We think we have the strongest organization in Iowa right now.

CAMEROTA: You do, and does that go as far or further than the appeal with evangelicals? How do you think that you would do with them?

PAUL: It's a little bit of both. We -- you know, I am socially conservative, as well as fiscally conservative. So, we have appeal across the board.

We also appeal to student, independents because we don't think it is a good idea to be back at war. I'm not going to send our sons and daughters back into Iraq, because I think the first war was a mistake and I'm not sending them back for a second one.

CAMEROTA: Senator Paul, great to talk to you.

PAUL: Thank you.

CAMEROTA: Thanks so much for being on NEW DAY.

Let's get it over to John.

BERMAN: All right. Thanks, Alisyn.

We're going to have more on Hillary Clinton's Benghazi testimony. What will the fall out be? How about the impact on her campaign? That's all next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:21:06] BERMAN: All right. We do have breaking news. A development in the presidential race. One fewer candidate as of just a few moments ago.

The former Rhode Island governor, former Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee just dropped out of the Democratic primary.

What are the consequences of this announcement?

Joining us, CNN political commentator S.E. Cupp, and CNN political commentator and Democratic strategist Paul Begala. Paul is also a senior adviser for a pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC.

Paul Begala, Lincoln Chafee, we hardly knew you.

PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. Well, we all kind of took him for granted, didn't we?

BERMAN: He's gone. It's too late now.

BEGALA: You wish him well. But -- I mean, I think he's got maybe two voters, Bernie will get one, Hillary get one.

BERMAN: In you are a seriousness. So that stage, there were five people at debate. Two have dropped out since. One guy not on the stage we thought might get in was Joe Biden. He's not in.

All of a sudden, this Democrat race for president looks very, very small.

CAMEROTA: S.E.?

S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, this is a problem with Joe Biden not getting in. This is sort of the (INAUDIBLE) that's left by Joe Biden's almost run. Now that the field is even smaller, I think the Democrats who wanted Biden to get in, maybe not because it was Joe Biden but because they were unsatisfied with the current field are now going to feel like the field is offering them less.

And there's less diversity, less interesting sort of ideas on the stage whether it is a debate stage or just the campaign trail. And I think you might hear some frustration again from Democrats to say we need someone else to get in. And there really isn't anyone left.

CAMEROTA: In fact, let's look at the latest polls. Hold on to that thought, Paul, for a second because this is just out an hour ago. This shows how Iowa Democrats are feeling. Hillary Clinton has seen some big gains -- 51 percent support Clinton for the nominee, 40 percent support sanders. O'Malley gets 4 percent. And that's up for Clinton from 40 percent last month.

Paul?

BEGALA: Pretty remarkable given that -- keep in mind, Hillary's run for president before. She finished a weak third, third, behind John Edwards, as well as, of course, Barack Obama, who won Iowa. So, that's pretty impressive for me.

I am for Hillary. I advise her super PAC. But she doesn't have to win every primary caucus.

What's interesting is that in that same poll, both Hillary and Bernie have favorable ratings over 80 percent. The reason no one else is in the race is that markets actually do. Maybe as a liberal, I'm not supposed to say that. But there's not a market for a fourth or a fifth or a 17th candidate, right?

If there were a market, someone would get in. But there's not. Democrats, this is weird. We usually like hate ourselves and hate our leaders and very anti-establishment culturally. We love Hillary. And we love Bernie.

So we're very happy with the candidates that we have.

BERMAN: S.E. just dropped the mike as soon as Paul said markets work.

(LAUGHTER)

BERMAN: I want to show a poll, S.E., from Iowa right now. "The Des Moines Register"/Bloomberg coming out with a poll that shows Ben Carson out in front of the Iowa race and by a lot, 28 percent, up nine points on Donald Trump. This is second poll in two days that shows Carson with a lead over Trump in Iowa.

Has the bubble been burst here?

CUPP: Maybe. Iowa is a very interesting place. In recent history, the Iowa caucus has been won by fairly establishment Republicans. George H.W. Bush, Dole twice, and then George W. Bush.

But in modern contemporary Republican politics, it's gone to more evangelical Republicans. Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, obviously, neither of them went to clinch the nomination, but it's not surprising that someone like Ben Carson in contemporary Republican politics is doing well in Iowa.

Now, if he actually wins the Iowa caucus, I don't think he's set up very well for New Hampshire or the rest of the map.

[08:25:07] But it would certainly maybe jolt Donald Trump off of his pedestal and make things a little bit more difficult for him going forward. I don't think Trump plays all that well in New Hampshire either.

CAMEROTA: So, Paul, what does this new poll showing Ben Carson's ascendance in Iowa mean for Trump?

BEGALA: Yes, it means that Mr. Trump -- right now, he's still the national front runner by a mile, right? But it means he may have to retool. Iowa is important.

S.E. is right. In the last few years in the Republican side it's gone to the strongest Christian evangelical. Dr. Carson has powerful faith. If you read his books, it's remarkable faith that we have. And we all respect that. And I think in Iowa, that's going to -- as George W. Bush said, that is really going to resignate well in Iowa among those faith voters.

CUPP: You have to do it, Paul. You have to get one in?

BEGALA: I have to. Come on. It's too great a line. Bush actually did that once.

Now, but that community is really, really powerful. But -- in the Republican side, you know, what my friends in New Hampshire say. The Republicans is well Iowa picks corn but New Hampshire picks presidents. In the Republican Party, the New Hampshire has, as S.E. has just hinted, been a better predictor of who the nominee is going to be.

BERMAN: Just ask President John McCain.

S.E., I want to turn to Benghazi now and the eleven hours of testimony we heard yesterday on Capitol Hill. You know, we heard both Democrats and Republicans say this morning that Hillary Clinton weathered the storm. That maybe there were some new things there but the game -- and I shouldn't use the word game, but the atmosphere surrounding Benghazi has not changed as of now.

CUPP: Yes. Yes, as I said yesterday, the Benghazi cake is baked. I think if you are following the Benghazi story and all of these hearings, you have made up your mind about what the Benghazi hearings are about. You have either decided it is a partisan witch hunt meant to attack Hillary Clinton or you have decided that there are serious questions that still need answering and that she's not been held accountable. If you are not following it, I don't think you learned anything or changed your mind about anything or this is going to pull you into the election yesterday.

So I think you would look at what happened yesterday and I think you could say very fairly that Republicans I think made some good points and reinforced some existing themes and questions around Hillary Clinton's role in Benghazi.

And if you are a Democrat, you could say she went through it really well. She looked poised. She handled herself great.

In fact, I heard from a Republican who said she's never looked more presidential. Good for her. It was good for her for sure. But I think Republicans also cemented some narratives that already existed.

CAMEROTA: And yet, Paul -- and because of those narratives we just had Congressman Jim Jordan on the program who said --

BEGALA: Let me guess. He endorsed Hillary.

CAMEROTA: No, he did not endorse Hillary.

BEGALA: My bad.

CAMEROTA: He said this is not going away. He's calling for an independent judge to look at why she misled people after she admitted to Chelsea in the e-mail that this was a terror attack.

So, what do you think Paul? Do you think the Republicans can take this further, there will be more months of investigation? Or what happens next?

BEGALA: They will never stop. The only cure for Hillary hating is embalming fluid, OK? They will hate her as long as we breathe. And that is just part of being Hillary.

I don't quite understand it. I don't know Congressman Jordan and I'm sure he's a lovely man. I do not understand this.

But it is not working politically. I know that. I have no idea psychologically what kind of demons drive that kind of hatred.

But it is not working politically at all. I mean, she has had a run. She had a terrible summer. We all covered it. She had a lot of rough bumps in the road over the summer.

In the last ten days, she had a stellar debate performance. Even when the expectations set high. The vice president decided not to run which is a huge relief, I'm sure to her campaign, and then now eleven hours of testimony, super human, endurance and stamina and I think grace and grit.

She's my friend and this is one of the few times I can't talk to her because of the super PAC. I'm so proud of how she performed especially when being harassed by Lilliputians like congressman --

BERMAN: S.E., in the spirit of the Benghazi panel, a yes or no question, quickly. You know, did Hillary Clinton clear all three hurdles she had, Joe Biden debate and Benghazi successfully?

CUPP: I would say yes to the first two. Like I said on the Biden thing, if there is this ABC anyone but Clinton caucus growing around her, that's going to be a problem.

Benghazi, no. I think like I said, if you believe that Hillary Clinton was not held accountable enough for what happened that day, I think yesterday kind of reinforced some of those narratives. Also as to her lack of judgment and lack of trust worthiness, I think all of that came out yesterday if you were inclined to sort of already think that about her.

CAMEROTA: Yes, people have said that.