# 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:** 12\ **Page:** 3
**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, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605/41 "2013-05-25T13:44:54Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. And you know the added State Dept ‘mistake’ was made by Jon Carl how, John Mace? If Jon Carl made a mistake in reporting what the Republicans knew to be the truth about their ‘version’ of the emails then they certainly did not object when Jon Carl printed his ‘mistake’ the following day did they? So not only have you opined about something that you can’t possibly know for sure but the lack of objective reasoning behind that opinion is very fragile indeed. If my response to your post lacks merit in any way, could you be so kind to reply with an explanation as to why you think it does? ---
**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, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605/42 "2013-05-25T17:06:40Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > And you know the added State Dept ‘mistake’ was made by Jon Carl > how, John Mace? The mistake was putting it in quotes when he knew he was reporting 2nd hand about summaries he was given. As noted in the Washington Post link above: > [@](#): > > When the White House last week released all of its e-mails, it became clear that Rhodes was responding at the tail end of a series of e-mail exchanges that largely discussed the State Department concerns. > > In other words, the summary would have been fairly close if the commas had been removed and replaced with brackets: “We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities [including those of the State Department] and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation.” > > So is this more a case of some sloppy note-taking and reportorial imprecision? (There were also some discrepancies concerning an e-mail from State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.) Hayes, on May 14, noted: “Neither of my pieces quoted the Rhodes e-mail. This was no accident. Near-verbatim is not verbatim.” > > Karl over the weekend tweeted, “I sincerely regret the error I made describing an email from Ben Rhodes. I should have stated, as I did elsewhere, the reporting was based on a summary provided by a source. I apologize for my mistake.” He declined to comment further. > > “I didn’t speak to anyone who represented the email summaries as direct quotes,” Hayes said in an e-mail Monday. “I called around on Capitol Hill and elsewhere to follow up on what I thought were interesting footnotes in the House GOP report on Benghazi. Those notes referred to specific emails (and included exact times) and I thought there might be more to learn.” > > Moreover, the full disclosure of e-mails makes it clear that White House officials were concerned about the State Department’s objections. Emphasis added. > [@](#): > > If Jon Carl made a mistake in reporting what the Republicans knew to be the truth about their ‘version’ of the emails then they certainly did not object when Jon Carl printed his ‘mistake’ the following day did they? Why should they? As also noted, the added information about the State Department was consistent with the full context of the e-mail exchange. > [@](#): > > So not only have you opined about something that you can’t possibly know for sure … OK, let’s stop right there. This is your thesis. You are the one who has to provide proof, and you have failed to do so. There is no proof that Republicans “altered classified documents” and no crime was committed. If you can’t prove either of those claims you made, your thesis fails. Best to admit your mistake and move on. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2013, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605/43 "2013-05-25T18:46:16Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The mistake was putting it in quotes when he knew he was reporting 2nd hand about summaries he was given. As noted in the Washington Post link above: > Emphasis added. If he’d done that, the summaries would have been merely inaccurate and misleading instead of totally wrong. In other words I can believe the error happened this way, but it was botched regardless. Taking the bit about the CIA investigation out of that comment changes its meaning in a very significant way. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2013, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605/44 "2013-05-26T02:38:43Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > As also noted, the added information about the State Department was consistent with the full context of the e-mail exchange. Define the consistency. There is no consistency because Jon Carl wrote that what the White House said earlier was proven to be lies. Carl and Republicans were making a case that the CIA didn’t agree with what the State Dept 'scrubbed and that is not true at all. When you take out the State Department reference that was not in the original email - it is very clear that the White House did not lie when they said they changed very little. It was Republicans that lied in the version that they gave to Jon Carl. Carl did not admit that he made it all up. He said he was given the information as printed by his source. It was a mistake to pretend that the lying source was a direct quote taken from the original emails themselves. It was outright lying by an investigative committee person who copied it wrong. Obama is my president and I believe we deserve to know exactly who did this to his Administration and when they changed their version and then gave it to Jon Carl. You agree with Republicans it is nothing. Again. Fancy that. Now, not only can Republicans lie about classified information they are trusted with for their own use, but they can leak a lie to the Press and that is ok too. Just a mistake by the journalist in John Mace’s world. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2013, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605/45 "2013-05-26T02:51:45Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Taking the bit about the CIA investigation out of that comment changes its meaning in a very significant way. Of course it significantly changed the fact pattern being used by the accusers on the Republican side. On Wednesday the focus was on Obama and Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice for blaming it on a protest over a movie. On Thursday that scandal mongering was a huge flop. On Friday with Jon Carl’s ‘exclusive and sensational new news’ the scandal mongering flipped to 'WH scrubbed CIA talking points to suit Hillary Clinton’s State Department. Jay Carny lied before the election when they said they did not change much. And this proves Obama is corrupt and power hungry and Hillary went along with the corruption and tried to cover it up. It is interesting to see some go so easy on Republican dishonesty and then diminish that dishonesty by calling just a reporters mistake. ---
**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 26, 2013, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605/46 "2013-05-26T21:05:35Z")
Probably due to the heavy bias towards the GOP on this MB. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2013, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605/47 "2013-05-27T15:13:07Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Probably due to the heavy bias towards the GOP on this MB. I’d like an explanation for your bias towards the GOP on this matter and several others. No need to lump yourself into group think that is here whether ii its imagined or real on your part. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2013, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605/48 "2013-05-27T15:32:57Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Probably due to the heavy bias towards the GOP on this MB. And at the Washington Post, those reactionary bastards. ---
**Author:** ![BigAppleBucky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigapplebucky/32/178_2.png) [@BigAppleBucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigAppleBucky)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2013, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605/49 "2013-05-27T23:59:06Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Rachel Maddow is ripping ABC a new one right now. Did ABC ever out the leaker as they should have? The rules of the journalism game used to be when an intentionally inaccurate story is leaked, the person(s) responsible is/are outed. Doesn’t seem to have happened in this case. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2013, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605/50 "2013-05-28T10:30:27Z")
No, ABC decided to give credence to their part in the lie. ---
**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 29, 2013, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605/51 "2013-05-29T01:24:49Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I’d like an explanation for your bias towards the GOP on this matter and several others. No need to lump yourself into group think that is here whether ii its imagined or real on your part. First, why don’t you tell us if you’ve stopped beating your wife. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2013, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-altering-classified-docs-then-leak-to-press-to-stir-up-scandal-hysteria-be-a-crime/658605/52 "2013-05-30T23:55:52Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Define the consistency. There is no consistency because Jon Carl wrote that what the White House said earlier was proven to be lies. > > Carl and Republicans were making a case that the CIA didn’t agree with what the State Dept 'scrubbed and that is not true at all. > > When you take out the State Department reference that was not in the original email - it is very clear that the White House did not lie when they said they changed very little. It was Republicans that lied in the version that they gave to Jon Carl. Carl did not admit that he made it all up. He said he was given the information as printed by his source. > > It was a mistake to pretend that the lying source was a direct quote taken from the original emails themselves. > > It was outright lying by an investigative committee person who copied it wrong. > > Obama is my president and I believe we deserve to know exactly who did this to his Administration and when they changed their version and then gave it to Jon Carl. > > You agree with Republicans it is nothing. Again. Fancy that. > > Now, not only can Republicans lie about classified information they are trusted with for their own use, but they can leak a lie to the Press and that is ok too. Just a mistake by the journalist in John Mace’s world. Why can’t you respond directly to the points I make John Mace. Are you ever serious about anything? [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=2)