Erickson wrote on his blog that while he believes there are still “relevant questions” about the September 2012 attacks, the “hearings are a waste of time because everything about it is politicized and nothing is going to happen,” and “most” of the committee “just wants to grandstand”:

The hearings are a waste of time because everything about it is politicized and nothing is going to happen. There will be no scalp collection. In fact, it is clear from today's hearing that Trey Gowdy and Peter Roskam seem to be the only two people on the committee of either party who are capable of asking exacting, precise questions. Most of the rest of the committee just wants to grandstand for the folks back home as either prosecutors of or defenders of Hillary Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton too is far too bright to be trapped in this or any questions. There have been some, by Trey Gowdy typically, that have clearly caused Mrs. Clinton to be flustered, but the long term effects of that will be to make her a martyr to her own side. But the fact is, Democratic voters are not going to reject Mrs. Clinton even if she were to admit that she had flown to Benghazi and joined Al Qaeda in the attack.

He concluded that the hearing “was all a political spectacle” and “a carnival road show of back bench congresscritters playing to the cameras and Hillary Clinton working hard to play persecuted victim.”

Other conservative pundits have expressed frustration with today's committee and some of its members.

New York Post and Weekly Standard writer John Podhoretz tweeted of Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS): “Why doesn't Pompeo just go over and swear her in for president now--if he goes on like this he'll practically get her elected” and “Democrats now lining up to invite Pompeo to come into their districts to campaign against them.” Daily Caller columnist Matt Lewis tweeted that unless something changes, Clinton appears to “have come out on top” and “She even seems more likable now.”