• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims [W:361]

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
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
 
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
 
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

According to the article, the GOP claimed the said emails were from the White House.
 
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.

What the lefties are doing is saying "State Department was never mentioned" but the reply that was posted in the link in the OP was part of a chain which regarded Nuland's opposition to most of the then current draft.

If the OP had actually bothered to read the emails he would have known that but when one has an agenda it seems that things like truth and accuracy are irrelevant.
 
According to the article...

So?

With the White House released documents available to all, what would there be to gain by altering the emails?

When one reads the WH emails, one should easily come to the conclusion that there is no scandal.
 
The CBS reporter was citing a source that had seen or was involved with the emails and what was cited was paraphrased....but accurate.

Paraphrasing is not putting said words in between quotation marks.
 
Paraphrasing is not putting said words in between quotation marks.

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".
 
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.
 
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.

isn't what someone did 'fraud'
 
When one reads the WH emails, one should easily come to the conclusion that there is no scandal.

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?
 
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.

Actually, there is strong evidence the DOJ used IRS operatives to hack into medical records identified through phone taps of AP reporters who were then able to use information in those records to gain access to various computers which allowed them to alter White House emails and send them out under GOP banners...

Wonder who will be getting a Presidential Medal of Freedom?
 
The press has pretty much lost all credibility in the last 20 years or so, dont 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?
 
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".

No, it was the emails that the source claimed were legit.

You need to read this:

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.

CNN exclusive: White House email contradicts Benghazi leaks – The Lead with Jake Tapper - CNN.com Blogs
 
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?

I did.
 
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?

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.
 
Of course there is no scandal. It was a democrat...there could be no scandal. Democrats aren't corrupt and don't ever do anything incorrectly.... :roll:
 
When one reads the WH emails, one should easily come to the conclusion that there is no scandal.

Really?

Show us all where they mention a youtube video in those emails as being responsible

Thanks

By the way, the WH only released 100 pages out of 25K pages of emails related to this situation. Drip. Drip. Drip.

Woodward: 'I Would Not Dismiss Benghazi,' Similar to Watergate | The Weekly Standard

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.
 
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 for you:

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.”

ABC’s Benghazi problem festers - Salon.com
 
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.

It seems that way.

Just as it's possible there is more to the issue about altered emails and the GOP than meets the eye.

Still can't figure why that would be done when the originals are available for comparison. Could there be a move to discredit the GOP?
 
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.
No, the WH nor State were "chopping things out of emails".

The talking points were being internally edited, but the discussion HERE is about the reported emails from Nuland and what she actually wrote.
 
Back
Top Bottom