THE 5 MOST SERIOUS ACCUSATIONS FROM REPUBLICANS’ BENGHAZI REPORT.

Remember that heated hearing last fall where Hillary Clinton sat in front of Congress for 11 hours and defended her handling of the Benghazi terrorist attacks? Well, a report from that investigation (of which Clinton's testimony was just one part) is out, capping the two-year process that is the ninth overall investigation into Benghazi.

There is no smoking gun, but the report does conclude that Clinton and the Obama administration more broadly should have realized how in-danger our diplomatic posts in Libya were at the time of the 2012 attack and done more to protect them and the four Americans -- including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens -- who were killed.

Or, more accurately, the Republicans on the special Benghazi committee concluded that. Democrats on the committee called this whole thing a partisan witch hunt to bring down Clinton's presidential run and released their own, much softer report on Monday. But those two reports aren't even the sum total of the committee's work; two of the committee's most conservative lawmakers released a more critical report, which was not signed off on by the rest of the GOP members.

For our purposes, we're going to focus exclusively on Republicans' main report -- I know, it gets confusing -- since Republicans are the ones in control of the committee and Congress, and this is the report a majority of the committee members signed off on. It's also the one that will be at-issue in the 2016 presidential race.

Clinton has rebutted many of the report's key findings in the past, though this one brings several new details about that night that committee Chair Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) says should "fundamentally change the way you view Benghazi."

Here are the five most serious findings from it, according to reviews of the report from The Washington Post's Karen Young and Adam Goldman, Politico's Racheel Bade, CNN's Stephen Collinson and a news conference Gowdy gave Tuesday about it:

1. The State Department failed to protect our diplomats in Libya

This is the report's bottom line. It doesn't necessarily lay the blame at Clinton's feet -- Gowdy had said he wanted to keep the report focused on the facts, not personalities -- but the conclusion is clear: Clinton and the Obama administration should have realized the risks.

To back this conclusion up, CNN's Collinson reports that requests for more security in Benghazi leading up to the attack went unheard or were refused. (In a statement to reporters, State Department spokesperson Mark Toner indicated there was no new evidence in the report.)

2. The CIA missed warning signs

The report says the agency misread how dangerous Libya, in the midst of a revolution after overthrowing its longtime dictator a year earlier, was at the time. Recall the attack took place on Sept. 11, 2012.

3. The Defense Department failed to rescue Americans in time

Or at least, they were late in deploying help, waiting until well after the attack had begun even though President Obama had approved the military to do whatever it needed to hours earlier. U.S. military forces didn't reach Benghazi until the day after the attack. The report blames a breakdown in the chain of command for this.

"No U.S. military asset was every deployed to Benghazi despite the order of the Secretary of Defense at 7 o'clock that night," Gowdy told reporters in a press conference Tuesday. "So Washington had access to real-time access information yet somehow they thought he fighting had subsided."

(The Democrats' version of the report concludes that even if the military got to Benghazi earlier, it could not have saved the lives of the four Americans who were killed. Gowdy says that's beside the point.)

4. The Obama administration "stonewalled" the investigation

The administration engaged in what Gowdy described as "intentional," "coordinated" and "shameful" stonewalling of his investigation by refusing to turn over all of its records and delaying getting others to Congress.

5. A Clinton aide influenced the State Department's review

As noted above, Congress isn't the only branch of government that reviewed what happened in Benghazi. The State Department did its own, too, which was intended to be internal but independent (think the watchdog report on Clinton's emails).

But according to a section of the Benghazi investigation that Bade obtained, the report "was consistently influenced by" Cheryl Mills, Clinton's former chief of staff. Mills has said she offered suggestions on drafts, but they were merely that, suggestions.

What the report didn't answer

Among the most prominent areas the report doesn't shed light on are allegations that the United States was helping get weapons to Libyan rebels. Any such operation, which Politico's Bade reports Clinton herself supported but the administration never confirmed or denied, would have been top-level secret. (Recall the 2012 attack happened a year after a successful uprising against its longtime dictator, Moammar Gaddafi.)

Apparently the government still refuses to answer questions about whether it existed; the report says they refused to let anyone who might have knowledge of such a program testify.