- Joined
- Oct 19, 2012
- Messages
- 12,029
- Reaction score
- 3,530
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
More evidence emerging that the GOP has edited Benghazi-related emails in order to create a fake scandal against Obama. It looks like the real scandal is going to be the one about GOP operatives engaging in what may have been criminal tampering with evidence. The question is, were Issa, Boehner and the rest personally involved?
Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims
So emails from the GOP are what every news service depended on, and not those released by the White House?
:shock:
You a wild and crazy person...
:screwy
More evidence emerging that the GOP has edited Benghazi-related emails in order to create a fake scandal against Obama. It looks like the real scandal is going to be the one about GOP operatives engaging in what may have been criminal tampering with evidence. The question is, were Issa, Boehner and the rest personally involved?
Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims
According to the article, the GOP claimed the said emails were from the White House.
According to the article...
So?
With the White House released documents available to all, what would there be to gain by altering the emails?
The CBS reporter was citing a source that had seen or was involved with the emails and what was cited was paraphrased....but accurate.
When one reads the WH emails, one should easily come to the conclusion that there is no scandal.
Paraphrasing is not putting said words in between quotation marks.
Keep dancing guys. GOP operatives altered evidence. The only issue is not who is going to resign in the GOP leadership, but who's going to jail. Evidence tampering is a crime.
When one reads the WH emails, one should easily come to the conclusion that there is no scandal.
Really? Easily conclude?
Makes one wonder what the press is doing then, doesn't it?
Keep dancing guys. GOP operatives altered evidence. The only issue is not who is going to resign in the GOP leadership, but who's going to jail. Evidence tampering is a crime.
The press has pretty much lost all credibility in the last 20 years or so, dont you think?
He was quoting the source, not the email. He hadn't seen the email yet. Besides, we're talking about facts here, not proper editing. I'm getting sick and tired of lefties looking at a long string of factual information and then turning around and saying "irrelevant. There's a comma missing".
CNN exclusive: White House email contradicts Benghazi leaks
CNN has obtained an e-mail sent by a top aide to President Barack Obama about White House reaction to the deadly attack last September 11 on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, that apparently differs from how sources characterized it to two different media organizations.
No scandal!?
Did you read the series? Are you aware of what information was used to start the process and what was left at the end? Why was all that stuff cut out? In particular, why was the information about prior warnings and prior attacks left out? One would figure that was pretty damned pertinent to the situation, don't you think?
Yes.
What does that have to do with the alleged alteration of White House released emails, reportedly by the GOP?
With comparisons so easily made, what would be the point?
When one reads the WH emails, one should easily come to the conclusion that there is no scandal.
But if you read through all these e-mails, you see that everyone in the government is saying, 'Oh, let's not tell the public that terrorists were involved, people connected to al Qaeda. Let's not tell the public that there were warnings.
No, it was the emails that the source claimed were legit.
You need to read this:
CNN exclusive: White House email contradicts Benghazi leaks – The Lead with Jake Tapper - CNN.com Blogs
There is a 100 page history of the email floating around which, as I understand it, was released by the White House. If you read through that chain you will see that various offices chopped out various things for various reasons. The end result is that the CIA version that began the chain and contained all kinds of relevant information was pared down to damned near nothing. There must have been some reason for that and at the end of that list there is even an email from Petraeus where he is obviously unhappy about what the final version says.
Furthermore, in that chain you can see where FBI didn't dispute much of anything and was unconcerned about the points (in an early stage of rewrite) hindering their investigation. The upshot is that salient facts were edited out for purely political reasons and chief among those reasons was resistance from the State Department.
Here’s a timeline of ABC’s role in the matter:
Friday, May 10 – Morning: Karl’s explosive report that ABC had “obtained” 12 different versions of the administration’s talking points on the Benghazi attack quickly made the controversy the top news item of the day as every other news organization rushed to aggregate and digest his report (including Salon).
Friday, May 10 – Afternoon: As Karl’s report ricocheted across Washington, Republicans seized on it and the White House launched a counter-offensive, hosting a series of deep background calls with reporters to try to put out the fire. The importance of the report can’t be overstated. As Jonathan Chait wrote, “Karl’s report produced among mainstream and liberal reporters a sense of embarrassment at having dismissed the story as a weird partisan obsession.” The New Yorker’s Alex Koppelman wrote that after dismissing the Benghazi controversy for some time, “now there is something to it.”
Sunday, May 12: The damaging narrative is cemented on the Sunday Morning talk shows, where the Benghazi emails get top billing.
Tuesday, May 14: The story begins to crumble after CNN’s Jake Tapper — ironically a former ABC reporter until recently — obtains one of the full emails in question, showing the version that Karl reported contradicts the original. “Was ABC News used by someone with an ax to grind against the State Department? It looks possible,” Joan Walsh wrote. She would later be proved correct.
Karl responds, but instead of correcting the record and apologizing, doubles down and says he was “quoting verbatim a source who reviewed the original documents and shared detailed notes.”
Wednesday, May 15: After stonewalling, the White House, releases over 100 pages of emails relating to the Benghazi attack, proving the email, as Karl originally reported it, was incorrect. ABC reported White House national security adviser Ben Rhodes seemed to intervene on behalf of the State Department in a turf battle with the CIA. But the original emails revealed he did not mention the State Department at all.
Thursday, May 16: CBS’ Major Garrett confirms speculation that it was Republican congressional aides who edited the emails by fabricating the bit about the State Department and other pieces. As Salon reported last week, some lawmakers and aides saw the emails in March and said nothing. But, as Kevin Drum speculates this morning, “riding high after last week’s Benghazi hearings, someone got the bright idea of leaking two isolated tidbits and mischaracterizing them in an effort to make the State Department look bad.”
If the ABC reporter had done his homework, then misleading/unfactual information would have not been released. But, it's more important nowdays to publish before checking facts.
No, the WH nor State were "chopping things out of emails".There is a 100 page history of the email floating around which, as I understand it, was released by the White House. If you read through that chain you will see that various offices chopped out various things for various reasons. The end result is that the CIA version that began the chain and contained all kinds of relevant information was pared down to damned near nothing. There must have been some reason for that and at the end of that list there is even an email from Petraeus where he is obviously unhappy about what the final version says.
Furthermore, in that chain you can see where FBI didn't dispute much of anything and was unconcerned about the points (in an early stage of rewrite) hindering their investigation. The upshot is that salient facts were edited out for purely political reasons and chief among those reasons was resistance from the State Department.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?