Her response was, instead of addressing her handling of the situation, "Let's just take a minute here and point out that this committee is basically an arm of the Republican National Committee. It is a partisan vehicle, as admitted by the House Republican majority leader, Mr. McCarthy, to drive down my poll numbers. Big surprise. And that's what they have attempted to do." This reply is a glaring example of an ad hominem logical fallacy; she evaded the charges by attacking a group instead of the position they are holding. Yes, the Republicans are, for political purposes, publicizing this crisis more than necessary, but that does not make their claims inherently false. She never addresses the issue directly, instead she implies that because the crisis is part of a Republican agenda, the case against her must be unsound.
This argument works well for Clinton because, although it is a logical fallacy, her argument is valid. It speaks to the polarized politics of the 21st century, and McCarthy himself admitted, “Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would’ve known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen.” Although McCarthy clearly thought his actions were more noble than Clinton's perception of the committee, her statement during the debate cannot be disputed. However, Clinton used the partisan argument for the wrong question; she did not need to attack McCarthy's intentions in order to explain to the public how, after all of the scandals of the Clinton family, she can still be a capable, respectable leader.