WATCH: S.E. Cupp interviews Sen. Ron Johnson on Real News

January 24, 2013

Writer

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went before the House and Senate yesterday to testify on the September 11, 2012 attacks on the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya. While Secretary Clinton enjoyed some fawning questions from her supporters, she also faced pointed criticisms from her detractors.

One of the most dramatic moments came during questioning from Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), who asserted that Americans were “misled” about what occurred leading up to the attacks, a question that caused Secretary Clinton to lose her composure and shout:

CLINTON: With all respect, the fact is we have four dead Americans was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans. What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, senator.

On Real News last night, S.E. Cupp interviewed Senator Johnson to get his reaction to what transpired during the hearings.

CUPP: With us right now is Senator Ron Johnson. Thanks for joining us.

JOHNSON: Hello, S.E. How are you doing?

CUPP: Good. Firstly, and this is not a condemnation of everything Secretary Clinton said today, but I was incredibly offended by her reaction to what I thought was a very valid question from you, and I think we all know what difference it makes whether the attacks were spontaneous or terrorism. What was your reaction to her response?

JOHNSON: I was surprised by her reaction, but, again, I thought it was a pretty simple question and valid point that this administration, I think, purposely misled the American public for a couple of weeks. And we all know why they did it. They have this narrative that [Osama] bin Laden is dead, and Al Qaeda is on the run, and all is well with their policy of disengaging with the world. The point I was trying to make is: it didn’t have to drag on for two weeks – this question of whether it was a terrorist attack or sprung out of some protest. All that really needed to happen was a simple phone call to the evacuees. Ask them what happened, and they could have easily told them there was nothing happening outside of the consulate prior to these guys rushing the gate. When you read the Accountability Review Board report, it’s obvious there was no protest, and those people could have answered that question very simply with a very quick phone call. It is clear we could have avoided two weeks of controversy.

CUPP: And a number of senators in the hearing called some of Secretary Clinton’s responses “unsatisfying.” Rand Paul, John McCain, and others pressed for more answers and more accountability from the State Department. Were you satisfied?

JOHNSON: I don’t think we really got any more answers to our questions. We are going to continue put questions on the record, and we will try to get those responses. One thing that I will agree with Secretary Clinton on is the primary thing we ought to be doing is learn lessons from the failure – the failed leadership that really took a look at all of these requests and did nothing with them to beef up security. We should learn those lessons and apply them to all of our other diplomatic missions so we can protect Americans that are serving this nation honorably abroad.

CUPP: Help us understand, from your perspective then, why Benghazi happened. Was it politics? Was it a funding issue, negligence, incompetence, duplicity, all of the above? What do you think?

JOHNSON: I would say, certainly, a failure of leadership – the fact that those cables didn’t bubble up past a certain level. I believe Secretary Clinton when she said she didn’t see those cables, those pleas for reinforcements, and beefing up security. So that is a real problem when you’ve got an incredibly volatile region – let’s face it, a nation where we led from behind in, and we continue to lead from behind in. That’s part of the problem, S.E., when America doesn’t lead, there is a void. There is a vacuum that is created and bad people to flow in to fill that void. And that is basically what happened in Libya. Again, that is just a failure of leadership from the president on down.

CUPP: Secretary Clinton also discussed the recent attacks in Algeria and ongoing terrorism threats in North Africa at great length. She seemed to contradict the President’s insistence that Al Qaeda has been decimated and urged action in that particular theater. Do you expect that we’ll intervene in Mali?

JOHNSON: I have no idea. I know the French were expecting at least some support, and it seems like we haven’t given them that much from that standpoint at all. Secretary Clinton really specified her remarks in terms of Al Qaeda being decimated – primary Al Qaeda. But what she certainly did admit is that Al Qaeda is springing up in different nodes all around North Africa. Let’s face it: Al Qaeda is not on the run. It is growing. The threat to America is real, and we need to take that seriously. We have to look at that fact honestly if we are actually going to secure our nation.

CUPP: Lastly, Senator, a number of your colleagues across the aisle criticized Republicans for failing to fund adequate security in places like Benghazi. What is your response to that?

JOHNSON: Listen, this government spends enough money. If we can’t prioritize spending properly to protect those individuals who step up to the plate and defend our freedom, something is wrong here. And something is horribly wrong here in Washington. There is plenty of money flowing into this government. It is about prioritizing spending to do the things the federal government was designed to do and to stop doing the things our founders never intended the federal government to take upon itself.

The panel went on to dissect the Secretary of State’s behavior during her time in front of the House and Senate, and it became clear that Secretary Clinton’s response to Senator Johnson was the defining moment of the day’s events.

“I think it was a rare misstep from her,” S.E. said in regards to Secretary Clinton’s “what difference does it make” remark. “‘What’s the difference’ is the reason we are having these conversations in the first place. ‘What’s the difference’ informs our public policy in areas like Benghazi. ‘What’s the difference’ – whether this happened spontaneously or was terrorism – should inform our decisions in making sure this never happens again. And, finally, ‘what’s the difference’ speaks to this timeline that we have talked about time and time again on this show of negligence, incompetence, and duplicity. ‘What’s the difference’ speaks to all three of those.”

Amy agreed with S.E., adding that she found the comments “shocking.” “It was jaw dropping, gob smacking,” she said. “I could not believe our Secretary of State was saying, ‘What’s the difference?’ It was absolutely stunning to me.”

While the exchange proved to be a rare moment of candidness from Secretary Clinton, Buck and Will agreed that her future political ambitions were the driving force behind the majority of her statements.

“It was stunning, but I have to also say that Secretary of State Clinton is not being held responsible,” Buck said. “I think she is already looking at the calendar and planning her 2016 run. This is not going to be sticking to her with any real political consequence.”

“I am not sure I can totally agree with your certainty that there is going to be no accountability for this,” Will responded. “As this goes on in time and this kind of reverberates, this could have serious consequences for her in 2016. ‘What’s the difference’ is pretty offensive.”

Guest panelist Ben Domenech noticed Secretary Clinton’s responses were quite retrospective given the fact that Clinton is still the standing Secretary of State.

“She is not addressing any of these responses to these senators, to these congressmen, from the perspective of someone who is still working within the government, within the administration,” Ben said. “But rather as someone who is looking back on it already and already looking on to the next thing.”

Ultimately, the hearings seemed to confirm a sad and unfortunate truth – there has been plenty of finger pointing under the guise of accountability but no actual accountability.

“She is claiming responsibility because she is not actually responsible,” Buck concluded. “She should have offered her resignation right away… but she didn’t because she knew she could get away with it.”

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep