The tone and style of Rep. Jim Jordan's aggressive questioning of Clinton were super unfortunate (despite the delightful meme opportunities that resulted), because he raised one of the more legitimate questions of the hearing. Some of you may recall that, prior to the attacks in Benghazi, an offensive video resulted in violent protests in Cairo.In the midst of the attack, Clinton mentioned the video in a statement. “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” her statement read , “The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others...But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”Jordan insisted, citing evidence from Clinton's e-mails, that at the time of the statement she was well aware that the Benghazi attacks were unrelated to the video, and was instead a strategic act by a terrorist group. Clinton responded, fairly, that the statement was intended to quell tensions in the region, including lethal protests in Cairo (where no Americans were killed).However, the Obama administration stuck to this narrative long after the flames had quelled, and it was absolutely a convenient one in the weeks prior to a presidential election. The specifics of Jordan's questions were perhaps misguided, but the issue does raise broader ones about her overemphasis on political expediency, which has been a liability for the Clinton campaign so far.