Jim Geraghty has excellent advice for tomorrow's Benghazi hearings: No preening, please.
Hugh Hewitt -- a seasoned attorney -- has offered several potentially fruitful lines of questioning.
Along with Guy's comprehensive post below, I'd also add one word of advice: Keep on summarizing for those either who are not detail people, or who are not tuned into the details of this matter.
Those who follow politics and/or are policy wonks show a remarkable and often praiseworthy capacity to get into the deep weeds about timelines, military details and the like. Such detail is necessary if the real story of Benghazi is ever to be told.
But the press and the public can be lazy (especially in the case of the former) and busy (especially in the case of the latter). If the press is to report on this matter with even a modicum of fairness -- and the public is to be able to follow along and understand why the Democrats' claims that it's all about politics are spurious -- the nugget of the scandal has to be condensed into one, easiliy understandable sentence.
That's often the difference between scandals that gain traction and scandals that don't. Think how the Clintons exploited the complexity of Whitewater to their advantage; when it came to Lewinsky and lying under oath, obfuscation was harder because the facts were less complex.
So in a nutshell, what Benghazi is about should be repeated -- not as outrage, not as fact -- but as the subject of the query:
Did the US government at the highest levels order the military to stand down -- thereby allowing Americans in Libya to be attacked and needlessly murdered --and then lie about their actions and the reasons for the terrorist attacks in order to preserve the narrative that Al Qaeda was defeated?