A panelist on Fox News' Cashin' In drew an odd comparison between Hillary Clinton's past remarks on the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and a hypothetical scenario in which she was assassinated.

On the May 3 edition of the show, panelist Wayne Rogers criticized the Obama administration's response to the September 2012 attacks and in particular then-Secretary of State Clinton's comments at a Senate hearing, in which she asked “what difference at this point does it make” when questioned about the editing process of a set of talking points relating to the attacks.

Distorting the nature of her comments, Rogers asked his fellow Fox panelists, “Imagine that Hillary Clinton runs for President and gets assassinated in the process and somebody shows up -- a Congressman -- and says, 'well, what difference does it make anyway?' I mean -- The New York Times would have it on the front page.”

Host Eric Bolling agreed, adding, “They would have a field day.”

Co-panelist Juan Williams quickly explained to Rogers and Bolling that they were distorting comments Clinton made while testifying about the attack.

During her January 2013 testimony, Clinton responded to a question from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) about the State Department's role in editing Obama administration talking points on the attack, and said, "[T]he fact is, we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest? Or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?" She added, “It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again.”

Conservative media figures have repeatedly distorted this Clinton comment, imagining it to reflect indifference to the lives lost in the attack, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. In reality, it is a direct rebuttal to the ongoing conservative obsession with the set of talking points, which were subject to changes made based on intelligence assessments available at the time. Clinton was accurately noting during her testimony that given the ongoing efforts to capture those who were responsible for the attacks and to provide security for U.S. consulates and embassies, the bureaucratic details of who edited a government memo were trivial at best.

The odd juxtaposition of a theoretical assassination attempt with this ongoing discussion comes as Fox tries to breathe new life into the Benghazi hoax, by resurfacing long-debunked and answered questions.