Appearing on Wednesday's The O'Reilly Factor, left-leaning FNC political analyst Kirsten Powers criticized the behavior of Democrats in the wake of the Benghazi hearings in Congress, as she cited the testimony of official Gregory Hicks as compelling. After complaining about Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings's reaction to the testimony, she continued:
Gregory Hicks is not there as a Republican. He was the number two person in Libya, and he's there telling them all this information, including the fact that nobody in Libya thought it was anything but a terrorist attack. How is that not interesting to people?
She went on to argue that it was starting to look like a "coverup" rather than just "incompetence": "I don't know that you can prove that it was a coverup or if it was incompetence. I would say today is pointing more in the direction of a coverup..."
She soon added: "What I think matters more is that he said nobody on the ground thought it was anything but a terrorist attack and also in the hearing they were quoting an email that was sent by a senior State Department official to Libya saying that they knew that it was terrorism..."
Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Wednesday, May 8, The O'Reilly Factor on FNC:
KIRSTEN POWERS: I just think that the behavior of the Democrats today was just astonishing. They had no interest whatsoever in what the witnesses were saying, which was riveting, I think, for anybody who watched it. And there was a lot of new information in it. And to hear Elijah Cummings saying, "Oh, I want to hear what the witnesses say, I just don't like the way it's gonna be used," fine, then ignore the way it's gonna be used and just listen to the witnesses.
And instead, he put out a statement after the hearing basically saying, "Oh, the Republicans are up to their old tricks." I mean, Gregory Hicks is not there as a Republican. He was the number two person in Libya, and he's there telling them all this information, including the fact that nobody in Libya thought it was anything but a terrorist attack. How is that not interesting to people?
(...)
I don't know that you can prove that it was a coverup or if it was incompetence. I would say today is pointing more in the direction of a coverup in the since that you have-
BILL O'REILLY: Let me challenge that. Hicks basically said he got a call from Hillary Clinton at 2 in the morning, and Hillary Clinton didn't even ask him who did it.
POWERS: Right.
O'REILLY: I mean, come on.
POWERS: He said that he just assumed she knew that it was terrorism since it was so obvious.
O'REILLY: It doesn't matter about Hicks, it matters about why didn't Secretary of State Clinton didn't ask Hicks, "What the hell happened?" You would have. I would have. Kate would have.
POWERS: Yeah, of course, absolutely, but what I think matters more is that he said nobody on the ground thought it was anything but a terrorist attack and also in the hearing they were quoting an email that was sent by a senior State Department official to Libya saying that they knew that it was terrorism...
