Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only problem with Tapper’s leak was that it was incomplete. Tapper didn’t get the rest of the e-mail chain, Hayes reported, which provided the context that generated the reporting in the first place:
Neither of my pieces quoted the Rhodes email. This was no accident. Near-verbatim is not verbatim.My first piece quoted the House GOP report on Benghazi and reported that Rhodes suggested taking the issue to the Deputies Committee meeting scheduled for the next day. My second piece paraphrased the House report – attributing concerns to State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, the author of the email to which Rhodes was replying, rather than the State Department generally – and reported that Rhodes suggested taking the issue to the Deputies Committee meeting scheduled for the next day. Rhodes did not respond to a request for comment from TWS before the original report on his emails.
Tapper’s report quotes my second piece. I’ve included all of this below – my email to Rhodes, the email that was provided Tapper, and my descriptions of the Rhodes email in two pieces in TWS. …
We don’t know who provided the Ben Rhodes email to CNN, but the leak did not include the earlier emails in the chain among top administration officials. If it had, we would know more about a curious reference on page 20 of the House GOP report. The report describes an email we now know was written by State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, who wrote to the group that earlier edits to the Benghazi talking points did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership.” And then, according to the House report, Nuland’s email reported “that the Department’s leadership was consulting with [national security staff].’”
Is this characterization from the House report accurate? Did the consultation happen? If so, who in the State Department leadership spoke with the White House’s national security staff? Why weren’t they satisfied with the earlier edits? What were the remaining “issues” with the talking points?
i agree with @jonkarl — the WH should release the full emails. If there’s “no ‘there’ there,” as POTUS said, shouldnt be a problem.
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) May 14, 2013
'There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.'
Rhodes also added that the talking points should be resolved 'in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.'
ABC's version, '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. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.'
Really? In order to "scoop" the other networks, it seems ABC fabricated their evidence.
A better article, including the actual email, is here:
The problematic piece that’s left is that the White House did, in fact, initially misrepresent the extent of the involvement in the editing of the talking points. I still believe the White House could clear that up by admitting error. But either way, if the editing itself is not problematic, then that doesn’t leave much of a scandal behind.
Tapper concludes: “whoever leaked the inaccurate information earlier this month did so in a way that made it appear that the White House – specifically Rhodes – was more interested in the State Department’s concerns, and more focused on the talking points, that the email actually stated.”
'There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.'
Rhodes also added that the talking points should be resolved 'in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.'
ABC's version, '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. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.'
Really? In order to "scoop" the other networks, it seems ABC fabricated their evidence.
A better article, including the actual email, is here:
The problematic piece that’s left is that the White House did, in fact, initially misrepresent the extent of the involvement in the editing of the talking points. I still believe the White House could clear that up by admitting error. But either way, if the editing itself is not problematic, then that doesn’t leave much of a scandal behind.
Tapper concludes: “whoever leaked the inaccurate information earlier this month did so in a way that made it appear that the White House – specifically Rhodes – was more interested in the State Department’s concerns, and more focused on the talking points, that the email actually stated.”
And you fail to mention that Tapper wants all emails released, something the WH wont do. Dont pick and choose crap to support your bs. If the WH had easy answer for everything, they would release everything. They dont.
And as one asked Tapper on Twitter, Couldnt the release of all documents/email regarding Benghazi clear a lot of this up? He replied Yep.
Remind me again, who is holding back information? The WH. They select one email and say SEEEEE. Yet one email out of how many dozens, hundreds or more of documents/emails they refuse to release. And as Obama said himself, they are trying to hide something. If they did nothing wrong, then release the damn information!!! Vindicate yourselves! Or I guess they cant, can they
Watch out Frank, given the latest developments, I would be very surprised if Lexus wasn't an agent for the IRS.
Besides that the MODs here are probably repping him
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
CNN in the right obviously
