CLINTON AND BENGHAZI

Democrats have been crowing this week that the House investigation of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the United States consul in Benghazi, Libya, doesn’t indicate a “smoking gun” that faults presumptive presidential nominee Hillary Clinton for not keeping the four slain Americans safe.

While there is no “smoking gun,” we believe there is plenty of smoke that implicates the country’s top diplomat at the time for not being up on movements in the Middle East country.

That aside, we believe Democrats are misreading the electorate’s feelings about Clinton’s role in the tragedy. Most voters don’t believe she would intentionally leave a U.S. consul unprotected or not take action if she knew something imminent were about to happen there.

Even for the then-secretary of state, who was notorious for lies and obfuscations in attempting to explain political snafus as first lady, that is a lot to swallow.

No, the public — the average Joe willing to give her the benefit of the doubt on doing her job — began to fall away on her trustworthiness during a Senate committee hearing on the issue in January 2013. In the hearing, she seemed to display a callousness about the four deaths, which she and the Obama administration had blamed on protests over a YouTube video but which had subsequently been linked to an al-Qaida attack.

“With all due respect,” she said to questioner Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., “the 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 who decided that they’d go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?”

Then, as other hearings unfolded, the truth began to dribble out. She and the administration knew from the beginning the incident occurred not over protests about an anti-Muslim video but from a terrorist attack. But the administration, facing what looked to be a close Obama re-election bid with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, couldn’t be seen to be weak on al-Qaida. The truth had to be spun.

With the revelations, Clinton’s credibility took a serious nosedive and hasn’t recovered.

So while Beltway Democrats clap themselves on the back for their candidate escaping serious culpability, the Washington Examiner put together a timeline that tells the unvarnished story.

The saga unfolds when Clinton calls Libyan President Mohammad al Magariaf at 6:49 EDT on Sept. 11, 2012, and tells him about the attack, mentions the group that has taken credit for it, indicates it appears to have been planned in advance and says the group claiming credit is likely associated with al-Qaida. But at 10:08 p.m., in the administration’s first public statement, she says that “some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet.”

Less than an hour and a half later, at 11:23 p.m., she tells her daughter in an email that “two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda[sic] like group.” But at 10:05 the next morning, June 12, in a public statement, she goes back to the video explanation, saying, “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet.”

Privately, at 3:04 that afternoon in a phone call with Egyptian Prime Minister Hehsam Qandil, she tells him, “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest.” But in a speech at 10 a.m. on Sept. 13, she blames the “video circulating on the internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries.” She calls it “disgusting and reprehensible,” claims it denigrates “a great religion” (Islam) and warns the public not to draw a connection between the attacks and Islam.

Behind closed doors at 11 a.m., a State Department official and the Egyptian ambassador discuss the “targeted attack in Libya.” But at noon the next day, June 14, White House spokesman Jay Carney tells reporters, “We have no information to suggest it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims … find offensive.”

Privately, at 8:09 p.m. the same day, White House adviser Ben Rhodes prepares United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice for her appearance on the Sunday talk shows, telling her she must “underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” At 10 p.m., as the father of one of the slain individuals watches his son’s body move down the tarmac, Clinton tells him the government would arrest the maker of the YouTube video, which she said was responsible for his son’s death.

On Sept. 15, in his weekly address, President Obama says, “This attack takes place at a time of turmoil and protest in many different countries.” The next day, Sept. 16, Rice gives five interviews, blaming the video and telling Chris Wallace of Fox News, “We don’t see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, premeditated attack.”

The private truth-public lie scenario continued for several more days, but it ultimately was the smoke that choked the public on Clinton. She didn’t have to be named in a report that placed the blame squarely on her shoulders. The public saw who she was — and who she is.