Should altering classified docs & then leak to Press to stir up scandal hysteria be a crime?

Here 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?

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.

Now the administration gets caught lying about lying. Is there anything they won’t lie about?

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.

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.

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"“”")

Does anyone dispute the contents of the Talking Point Emails that were released or which agency drafted them?

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’.

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.

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:

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:

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:

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"

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.

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”.

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:

In short, we can conclude that:

  1. No “classified documents” were altered.

  2. No crime was committed.

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?

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.