# Should altering classified docs & then leak to Press to stir up scandal hysteria be a crime? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 17, 2013, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605 "2013-05-17T16:07:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605/21 "2013-05-21T13:27:53Z")
[Here](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-white-house-claim-of-doctored-e-mails-to-smear-the-president/2013/05/20/a23343b6-c19e-11e2-8bd8-2788030e6b44_blog.html) is the Post’s Fact Checker on the email discrepancies. Apparently the Republicans had been working from notes, because they had not been permitted to keep copies of the emails at that time. Also, the reporters who received material from Republican sources acknowledged being told that they were receiving summaries from notes, not verbatim copies. ---
**Author:** ![Peanut\_Gallery](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/838e76/32.png) [@Peanut\_Gallery](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peanut_Gallery)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2013, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605/22 "2013-05-21T14:45:42Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > [Here](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-white-house-claim-of-doctored-e-mails-to-smear-the-president/2013/05/20/a23343b6-c19e-11e2-8bd8-2788030e6b44_blog.html) is the Post’s Fact Checker on the email discrepancies. Apparently the Republicans had been working from notes, because they had not been permitted to keep copies of the emails at that time. Also, the reporters who received material from Republican sources acknowledged being told that they were receiving summaries from notes, not verbatim copies. I love how it is excused as: “we see little evidence that much was at play here besides _imprecise wordsmithing or editing errors_ by journalists” Remind me what the controversy is about again? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605/23 "2013-05-22T00:04:14Z")
> [@Peanut\_Gallery](#): > > I love how it is excused as: > > “we see little evidence that much was at play here besides _imprecise wordsmithing or editing errors_ by journalists” > > Remind me what the controversy is about again? It just so happened that the day it came out was a couple of days after the Republicans held a hearing on Benghazi which was focused on Benghazi Scandal “A” which was that Susan Rice was given talking points to lie. And Benghazi Scandal “B” which was that Obama wouldn’t send a dying ambassador any Special Ops to save him. And Benghazi Scandal “C” which was that Hillary Clinton’s State Department stepped all over Whistleblowers who on Benghazi Day going to let it all hang out… and the big Impeachment word flew off every right wingers lips that could get in front of a microphone… And then… the day after the hearings… Flop it was. Then Jon Karl comes along with his doctored emails clenched in his fist… ready to take out Obama and Hillary in one wild sensational swing. He coined Scandal “D” with his headline about his sensational ‘obtained’ emails which was… White House ‘scrubbed’ talking points… for STATE DEPT. How hand that those Republicans made _imprecise wordsmithing or editing errors_ I think the point of this OP is being made. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605/24 "2013-05-22T07:18:29Z")
Now the administration gets caught lying about lying. Is there anything they won’t lie about? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605/25 "2013-05-22T07:52:07Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Now the administration gets caught lying about lying. Is there anything they won’t lie about? Keep it up, you’ll be right someday. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605/26 "2013-05-22T13:35:22Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Keep it up, you’ll be right someday. Maybe my post should belong in the “midterm election” thread but it’s a parallel I’ve noticed between these “scandals” and Monicagate. Even if there is the smallest substance to one of these scandals, the public already doesn’t care as much as the GOP might hope because they’ve been crying wolf for 6 years now. Just like with Bill Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605/27 "2013-05-22T13:40:26Z")
That’s a great point. The latest polls show that the public thinks these scandals are real, but they don’t seem to blame the President. I hope that doesn’t set a precedent of Presidents wanting to know as little as possible about what their administrations are doing. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605/28 "2013-05-22T14:33:02Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s a great point. The latest polls show that the public thinks these scandals are real, but they don’t seem to blame the President. > > I hope that doesn’t set a precedent of Presidents wanting to know as little as possible about what their administrations are doing. I hope you get sent some new talking points soon-this one is _boooooring_. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605/29 "2013-05-22T15:14:54Z")
I make up my own talking points. Can’t you tell? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2013, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605/30 "2013-05-23T02:21:48Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I make up my own talking points. Can’t you tell? But you do not get to revise the real talking points that were provided to Susan Rice on Benghazi before she went on the Sunday talk shows. The CIA assessment in the original draft included this statement: \*(“”""the **demonstrations** in Benghazi were \*\*spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo \*_and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex"“”")_ > [@](#): > > What the e-mails say: > > September 14, 2012 Page 6 (11:15 a.m.): The original talking points were sent by the CIA. > > Page 12 (3:04 p.m.): Talking points were sent to the White House’s Tommy Vietor (National Security Council spokesman) and Ben Rhodes (a top National Security aide). > > Page 13 (3:27 p.m.): A top official with the CIA Office of Public Affairs says they’re working on the talking points, and “will have further edits.” > > Page 15 (4:42 p.m.): CIA sends out a new draft for review before sending to the White House. > ORIGINAL CIA revised draft of TALKING POINTS (9/14/12 04:42 PM): > > We believe based on currently available information that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and currently available information continues to be evaluated. On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy. > > The crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals from across many sectors of Libyan society. That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack. > > Initial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia. The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but it did not deny that some of its members were involved. > > The wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in Libya almost certainly contribute to the lethality of the attacks. > > The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has [sic] previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks. > > We working with Libyan Authorities and intelligence partners in an effort to help bring justice those responsible for the deaths of US citizens. > > [the daily howler: Tommy Vietor gets it right on the Benghazi attack!](http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2013/05/tommy-vietor-gets-it-right-on-benghazi.html) > > [Benghazi: What Did the CIA Know, and When Did It Know It? – Mother Jones](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/benghazi-what-did-cia-know-and-when-did-it-know-it) > > [Newly Released Benghazi Emails Reveal Talking Points Timeline [FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT] | IBTimes](http://www.ibtimes.com/newly-released-benghazi-emails-reveal-talking-points-timeline-full-text-transcript-1262877) (see page 14 and 15 on the scroll of 100 email documents} > > Page 21 (5:09 p.m.): A version of talking points is sent to the White House and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence at 5:09 p.m. This is the second draft of the talking points, when the reference to “attack” was changed to “demonstrations.” Does anyone dispute the contents of the Talking Point Emails that were released or which agency drafted them? ---
**Author:** ![Werekoala](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/7993a0/32.png) [@Werekoala](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Werekoala)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2013, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605/31 "2013-05-23T17:25:11Z")
Read it three times so far - not seeing any mention of a video sparking the outrage (even in Cairo). Seeing plenty of mention of terroristic elements involved (even if not “officially” sanctioned by their leaders). Also a mention of five other attacks in the three months prior that were apparently not inspired by a video and/or demonstrations in Cairo. Maybe no fire, but a damn lot of smoke (pardon me) - Just sayin’. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2013, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605/32 "2013-05-23T18:12:42Z")
I think it is an undisputed fact (even by Republicans) that the protests in Cairo were about the video. So if the talking points say the attacks came out of “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.” it is not much of a leap to say that the protests in Libya were based on the video. Remember to prove a scandal it can’t just be, “she summarized the talking point in a different way that I would have”. It has to be that she purposefully altered the talking points in order to deceive the audience. Saying “we are still investigating and our assessment might change, but it looks like it might have come out of a spontaneous demonstration about the video” seems to be to be a reasonable summary. The only way there is any smoke is if you look at it with a particulate detector that estimates in ppm. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605/33 "2013-05-24T01:44:55Z")
> [@Werekoala](#): > > Read it three times so far - not seeing any mention of a video sparking the outrage (even in Cairo). Is it your contention that something else ‘sparked outrage’ in Cairo. (just askin’) And if so, please advise on what authority do you think something else was in play. This is well put, by the way: > [@](#): > > I think it is an undisputed fact (even by Republicans) that the protests in Cairo were about the video. So if the talking points say the attacks came out of “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.” it is not much of a leap to say that the protests in Libya were based on the video. > Buck Godot ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605/34 "2013-05-24T02:22:59Z")
So, getting back to the OP, which members of the House altered “classified docs”? Were any docs actually altered by anyone other than reporters? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605/35 "2013-05-24T04:12:09Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > So, getting back to the OP, which members of the House altered “classified docs”? > > Were any docs actually altered by anyone other than reporters? The Talking Point emails were shown to Congress Members long enough for them to take notes… I believe that was in March. So this past March, all members of Congress knew that the CIA initially believed and certified this: (“”““the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex””“”) That is what Susan Rice said on the Sunday Shows. So the mid-May hearings run by Rep Daryl Issa focused among other matters on the ‘scandal’ that Obama and Rice etc, lied about what the CIA originally thought and put into the talking points and the CIA . There was much ado about a ‘whistle blower’ coming forward who was in Tripoli with the State Dept… and he said when he heard Susan Rice speak of a Spontaneous Protest - he was flabber-gasted or something like that. There was no protest and he said he talked on the phone and he told his boss, Sec of State Clinton that there was no protest it was terrorists. So this whistle blower was to take the scandal to Hillary Clinton’s desk for Daryl Issa that she lied about the protest by omission. She can never be president after that. To get a sense of the right winger hoopla was all about..it was focused on “insiders” at the State Dept with new info about the cover up of ‘differences’ between State Dept accounts (Rice on Sunday shows vs what CIA knew etc} but the hot ticket was that these whistle blowers were being retaliated against by there employers… Because HRC was trying to “COVER UP” worse than Watergate the differences between what Admin said and CIA knew immediately. Di Geneva and Toensing the right wing lawyer couple were representing at least one of the whistle blowers for State Department infringement on their right to speak the truth to Congress etc… here’s Fox Insider: > [@](#): > > “I applaud these individuals for answering our call to testify in front of the Committee. They have critical information about what occurred before, during, and after the Benghazi terrorist attacks that differs on key points from what Administration officials – including those on the Accountability Review Board – have portrayed,” said Issa. “Our committee has been contacted by numerous other individuals who have direct knowledge of the Benghazi terrorist attack, but are not yet prepared to testify. In many cases their principal reticence of appearing in public is their concern of retaliation at the hands of their respective employers. > > Read more: [Fox News Flash | Fox News](http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/05/07/details-benghazi-whistleblowers-testify-wednesday-house-hearing#ixzz2UB6yIrDX) So remember, John Mace, since you asked that Republicans had seen the original CIA drafted and finalized emails for two months or so prior to the Wednesday May 8 huge Benghazi whistleblower scandal hearing before the House Committee run by Issa. The hearing was a huge PR flop for Issa and Republicans… No one heard anything new and by the end of the next day Thursday May 9, the pitiful excuse for a hearing was just about dead.. And then on Friday… Jon Carl to the rescue: > [@](#): > > Jonathan Karl May 10, 2013 6:33am > > When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story. > > ABC News \*\*has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress \*\*and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack. > > … > > White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest\*\* the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department.\*\* The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack. > > That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November. > > “Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. The great scandal word ‘scrubbed’ came into play. Wingers went berserk all weekend… Jon Karl was a right winger hero… But there was a problem… The talking points revealed that the CIA used Demonstrations and protest and crowed in their originals … So the "scrubbed’ sancal wiped out the "Blame the movie’ scandal. But on the removal of references to specific 'terrorists responsible for the attack was ‘changed’ from the original but that had no power as a scandal big hit so the ‘emails’ Jon Carl said he actually ‘obtained’ were written notes by Congress staffers with a political axe to grind and a "Scandal Hearing image to save and revive. Now we have a 'scrubbing and lying scandal.. that Issa could be proud of according to Jon Carl" > [@](#): > > White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest\*\* the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department.\*\* The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack. That statement “the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department” is a lie. It is simply not true. So to believe it was a simple mistake… by someone in Congress taking notes… is hard to believe. The intent was to go after HRC and a State Dept cover up, and this was the only way to do it. Accuse them of scrubbing and then lying to cover it up by sending Rice out there to be the scapegoat if anyone found out. It was all lies John Mace. I hope that answers your question. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2013, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605/36 "2013-05-24T13:12:40Z")
No, your wall of text did not answer my question. Please name the names of those House members who “altered classified documents”? Which documents were “altered”? If you can’t do that, then it would appear your thesis fails. For extra credit, please cite the statute that was violated when “Republicans appear to have committed this crime”. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2013, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605/37 "2013-05-25T00:00:19Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > How hand that those Republicans made _imprecise wordsmithing or editing errors_ > > I think the point of this OP is being made. Did you read the linked article? The Post’s “fact checker” says the claim that Republicans doctored emails to make the President look bad deserves three Pinnochios. And you think that supports your proposition that Republicans doctored emails to make the President look bad? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2013, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605/38 "2013-05-25T02:52:12Z")
In short, we can conclude that: 1. No “classified documents” were altered. 2. No crime was committed. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2013, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605/39 "2013-05-25T03:31:25Z")
> [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](#): > > Did you read the linked article? The Post’s “fact checker” says the claim that Republicans doctored emails to make the President look bad deserves three Pinnochios. And you think that supports your proposition that Republicans doctored emails to make the President look bad? :dubious: I do not know what the Washington Post has to do with this, since there is no dispute that the original emails released by the WH do not have the words, “extensive editing by the State Department” which someone altered that email and passed it on to Jon Carl. ABC retracted it because it was obvious that it was not in the original emails. We do not need a third party opinion when the facts are straightforward. That is a doctored version of what the classified documents stated and being that it was words that were absolutely in line with the Republican hoped for scandal narrative, it makes it difficult to believe it was a copy error. This forum has higher standards among its writers than to alliow partisan hacks to quote another saying ‘the State Dept extensively edited’ the original CIA talking points when they said nothing of the sort. But we want to let Republicans get away with it because… They are normally honest and mistakes can be made by good people. Is that it? Really? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2013, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605/40 "2013-05-25T13:18:28Z")
The “mistake” was made by the journalist. And it wasn’t a crime, nor should it be. Exactly what type of sanctioning he should receive is up to his employers. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605.md?page=3)