New Benghazi E-mails Link White House to Doctoring of Talking Points

[TemplarKormac]

Just in:

To only add fuel to the Benghazi fire, the Obama Administration is under even more scrutiny for supposedly sending different versions of recently released e-mails to congress and conservative watchdog, Judicial Watch. Congress is now alleging that the Obama Administration is now purposefully withholding crucial documents from a congressional investigation. Be reminded folks, impeding a congressional inquiry is a criminal offense. As seen below, officials in the Administration could face up to 5 years in prison for such withholding of documents:

18 U.S. Code § 1505

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so ...

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

The Story:

EXCLUSIVE: Documents reviewed by Fox News show there are differences between Benghazi emails released through the federal courts to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch and emails released to the House oversight committee as part of its investigation into the attacks. The discrepancies are fueling allegations the administration is holding back documents to Congress.


"The key question is whether Congress now has all the documents," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a member of the oversight committee, said. As for differences between the two sets of documents, Chaffetz alleged: "They are playing games. The classification and redactions are different. Why should Judicial Watch get more than Congress after issuing a subpoena?"
The emails published by Judicial Watch last week, which showed additional White House involvement in shaping the public explanation of what happened, helped trigger the announcement Friday by House Speaker John Boehner of a select committee to investigate.


Two of the emails, from Sept. 14, 2012, appear to be part of the deliberations in advance of then-U.N. ambassador Susan Rice's Sunday show appearances were she linked an anti-Islam video to the Benghazi attacks. The emails released to Judicial Watch include the names of those who participated in the email chain.


The same emails provided to the House committee do not include names.
While the text and subject line are redacted in full for both Judicial Watch and Capitol Hill, there are unexplained differences in the classification. The emails, originally marked "unclassified," were retroactively classified in February by the Department of State.

Discrepancies between Benghazi emails released to Congress, watchdog group | Fox News

 

[Vigilante]

LOLOL, they pulled out BECAUSE Bush was about to start the war? You are raising the looney bar very very very high.

btw, did you see today that one of your rightwing pals debunked your wacky retired general Benghazi story?

You guys are out-nutting each other now.

That's correct, and left UNGUARDED! You have difficulty understanding that?

And which CIA tale of Benghazi did you agree with and which one was the lie? I asked in that thread and got no answer!

The yellowcake was secured until Bush's antics unsecured it you moron.

BUT it was unsecured for days before the war, it IS WMD classified, and since the U.N. had been guarding it, it was a LIABILITY that needed to be secured...which it wasn't!

 

[tinydancer]

LOLOL, they pulled out BECAUSE Bush was about to start the war? You are raising the looney bar very very very high.

btw, did you see today that one of your rightwing pals debunked your wacky retired general Benghazi story?

You guys are out-nutting each other now.

That's correct, and left UNGUARDED! You have difficulty understanding that?

And which CIA tale of Benghazi did you agree with and which one was the lie? I asked in that thread and got no answer!

The yellowcake was secured until Bush's antics unsecured it you moron.

Chickababee what are you going on about?

 

[guno]

Just in:

To only add fuel to the Benghazi fire, the Obama Administration is under even more scrutiny for supposedly sending different versions of recently released e-mails to congress and conservative watchdog, Judicial Watch. Congress is now alleging that the Obama Administration is now purposefully withholding crucial documents from a congressional investigation. Be reminded folks, impeding a congressional inquiry is a criminal offense. As seen below, officials in the Administration could face up to 5 years in prison for such withholding of documents:

18 U.S. Code § 1505

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so ...

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

Documents reviewed by Fox News show there are differences between Benghazi emails released through the federal courts to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch and emails released to the House oversight committee as part of its investigation into the attacks. The discrepancies are fueling allegations the administration is holding back documents to Congress.


"The key question is whether Congress now has all the documents," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a member of the oversight committee, said. As for differences between the two sets of documents, Chaffetz alleged: "They are playing games. The classification and redactions are different. Why should Judicial Watch get more than Congress after issuing a subpoena?"
The emails published by Judicial Watch last week, which showed additional White House involvement in shaping the public explanation of what happened, helped trigger the announcement Friday by House Speaker John

Boehner of a select committee to investigate.


Two of the emails, from Sept. 14, 2012, appear to be part of the deliberations in advance of then-U.N. ambassador Susan Rice's Sunday show appearances were she linked an anti-Islam video to the Benghazi attacks. The emails released to Judicial Watch include the names of those who participated in the email chain.


The same emails provided to the House committee do not include names.
While the text and subject line are redacted in full for both Judicial Watch and Capitol Hill, there are unexplained differences in the classification. The emails, originally marked "unclassified," were retroactively classified in February by the Department of State.

Discrepancies between Benghazi emails released to Congress, watchdog group | Fox News

Benghazi Syndrome on steroids.

 

[mudwhistle]

After the debate Crowley admitted that Mitt was correct.

Obama said terrorism once in his speech in the Rose Garden, but didn't specifically say any of the protests were terrorism. He was speaking of terrorism in general of course. Obama set Mitt up by saying he did mention terrorism. Mitt, of course called him on it, and Crowley, who was in on it, told Mitt he did. Well, he did "mention" terror, but he also called it a spontaneous protest for weeks later. So it can't be both.

The truth is he did NOT call 'IT' (Benghazi) an act of terror. He said "NO ACT OF TERROR", not that Benghazi was an act of terror. The only reason Crowley was prepared to back him up was because Obama and Crowley set it up. I know that doesn't seem possible, but their you have it. Obama did so poorly in the first debate that he rigged the second one.

Pres. Obama fact checks Mitt Romney's Epic Libya Fail - YouTube

CARBINE!

There's your answer.

That's simply false. He was talking ABOUT Benghazi just before he referenced acts of terror.

It's called context. Look it up.

That flies in the face of everything else that they put out for weeks. He can't get away with just using the word terror once and then claim for weeks it wasn't anything to do with terrorists.

You lap up their excuses like the good little stooge, never once grasping the context of his speeches and Susan Rices comments on those Sunday Morning talkshows. They were very clear that they not only implied, but clearly stated that it was a video that caused the deaths of 4 in Benghazi, not a planned attack by terrorists. The problem is, the whole scenario was fabricated from the beginning, because folks that were there have already testified to this fact. And what's worse, the only person brought to justice so far has been a Coptic Christian who made that POS video. They aren't even bothering to look for the attackers.

 

[tinydancer]

Its about time.

 

[Oldstyle]

After the debate Crowley admitted that Mitt was correct.

Obama said terrorism once in his speech in the Rose Garden, but didn't specifically say any of the protests were terrorism. He was speaking of terrorism in general of course. Obama set Mitt up by saying he did mention terrorism. Mitt, of course called him on it, and Crowley, who was in on it, told Mitt he did. Well, he did "mention" terror, but he also called it a spontaneous protest for weeks later. So it can't be both.

The truth is he did NOT call 'IT' (Benghazi) an act of terror. He said "NO ACT OF TERROR", not that Benghazi was an act of terror. The only reason Crowley was prepared to back him up was because Obama and Crowley set it up. I know that doesn't seem possible, but their you have it. Obama did so poorly in the first debate that he rigged the second one.

Pres. Obama fact checks Mitt Romney's Epic Libya Fail - YouTube

CARBINE!

There's your answer.

That's simply false. He was talking ABOUT Benghazi just before he referenced acts of terror.

It's called context. Look it up.

That's such a crock! Seriously...why do you folks even attempt to make that dog hunt? Obama was talking in generalities about not giving into terrorism. He wasn't calling Benghazi a terrorist attack and would continue to refuse to do that for the better part of a week until it was OBVIOUS that it had nothing to do with the video that both he and Clinton tried to blame.

Candy Crowley did an abysmal job as a moderator.

 

[mudwhistle]

LOLOL, they pulled out BECAUSE Bush was about to start the war? You are raising the looney bar very very very high.

btw, did you see today that one of your rightwing pals debunked your wacky retired general Benghazi story?

You guys are out-nutting each other now.

That's correct, and left UNGUARDED! You have difficulty understanding that?

And which CIA tale of Benghazi did you agree with and which one was the lie? I asked in that thread and got no answer!

The yellowcake was secured until Bush's antics unsecured it you moron.

The UN claimed it wasn't there.

I've worked with the UN.

The only ones we can trust are those members that use English as their language. The Italians, Pakistanis, every other country cannot be trusted.

 

[tinydancer]

After the debate Crowley admitted that Mitt was correct.

Obama said terrorism once in his speech in the Rose Garden, but didn't specifically say any of the protests were terrorism. He was speaking of terrorism in general of course. Obama set Mitt up by saying he did mention terrorism. Mitt, of course called him on it, and Crowley, who was in on it, told Mitt he did. Well, he did "mention" terror, but he also called it a spontaneous protest for weeks later. So it can't be both.

The truth is he did NOT call 'IT' (Benghazi) an act of terror. He said "NO ACT OF TERROR", not that Benghazi was an act of terror. The only reason Crowley was prepared to back him up was because Obama and Crowley set it up. I know that doesn't seem possible, but their you have it. Obama did so poorly in the first debate that he rigged the second one.

Pres. Obama fact checks Mitt Romney's Epic Libya Fail - YouTube

CARBINE!

There's your answer.

That's simply false. He was talking ABOUT Benghazi just before he referenced acts of terror.

It's called context. Look it up.

I did you on another forum. I'll do you again. I have not a problem with this

 

[mudwhistle]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyK3WAT_gVY]Right about Russia "Sara Palin- Mitt Romney" ! - YouTube[/ame]

We have idiots running our government now..........this video makes it clear.......real clear......

 

[TemplarKormac]

Just in:

To only add fuel to the Benghazi fire, the Obama Administration is under even more scrutiny for supposedly sending different versions of recently released e-mails to congress and conservative watchdog, Judicial Watch. Congress is now alleging that the Obama Administration is now purposefully withholding crucial documents from a congressional investigation. Be reminded folks, impeding a congressional inquiry is a criminal offense. As seen below, officials in the Administration could face up to 5 years in prison for such withholding of documents:

18 U.S. Code § 1505

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so ...

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

Documents reviewed by Fox News show there are differences between Benghazi emails released through the federal courts to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch and emails released to the House oversight committee as part of its investigation into the attacks. The discrepancies are fueling allegations the administration is holding back documents to Congress.


"The key question is whether Congress now has all the documents," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a member of the oversight committee, said. As for differences between the two sets of documents, Chaffetz alleged: "They are playing games. The classification and redactions are different. Why should Judicial Watch get more than Congress after issuing a subpoena?"
The emails published by Judicial Watch last week, which showed additional White House involvement in shaping the public explanation of what happened, helped trigger the announcement Friday by House Speaker John

Boehner of a select committee to investigate.


Two of the emails, from Sept. 14, 2012, appear to be part of the deliberations in advance of then-U.N. ambassador Susan Rice's Sunday show appearances were she linked an anti-Islam video to the Benghazi attacks. The emails released to Judicial Watch include the names of those who participated in the email chain.


The same emails provided to the House committee do not include names.
While the text and subject line are redacted in full for both Judicial Watch and Capitol Hill, there are unexplained differences in the classification. The emails, originally marked "unclassified," were retroactively classified in February by the Department of State.

Discrepancies between Benghazi emails released to Congress, watchdog group | Fox News

Benghazi Syndrome on steroids.

Liberal ignorance on steroids

 

[tinydancer]

Any one else want to dance with me?

 

[Oldstyle]

[

That's the number of military dead since Obama became president. Most of them in Afghanistan.

Ever hear about it from the media?

Rarely.

Obama didn't put those soldiers in Afghanistan.

Bush did.

Now, one could argue whether that was a good strategy. I personally think Afghanistan became a lost cause when Karzai stole the 2009 election.

But your complaint is that Obama played the hand Bush dealt him instead of folding?

Ladies and Gentlmen, I give you full fledged Obama Derangement Syndrome.

You have an uncanny ability to demonstrate how little you know about what's happened in the world you live in, Joe. Obama did indeed put soldiers in Afghanistan...he did so when he called for the surge. According to the Congressional Research Service, there were 32,800 U.S. troops on the ground in Afghanistan in January 2009, when Obama entered office. In February 2009, the U.S. deployment increased to 35,900. By December 2009, the U.S. forces in Afghanistan had increased to 69,000. And, by September 2010, they had increased to 98,000. Do you want to apologize NOW for being clueless or did you want to wait a bit until you make an equally stupid statement and do it then to save time?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Any one else want to dance with me?

 

[mudwhistle]

Any one else want to dance with me?

I'm out of practice.......but I'll give it a go....

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh, the silence is quite telling.

 

[mudwhistle]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyK3WAT_gVY]Right about Russia "Sara Palin- Mitt Romney" ! - YouTube[/ame]

We have idiots running our government now..........this video makes it clear.......real clear......

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Just in:

To only add fuel to the Benghazi fire, the Obama Administration is under even more scrutiny for supposedly sending different versions of recently released e-mails to congress and conservative watchdog, Judicial Watch. Congress is now alleging that the Obama Administration is now purposefully withholding crucial documents from a congressional investigation. Be reminded folks, impeding a congressional inquiry is a criminal offense. As seen below, officials in the Administration could face up to 5 years in prison for such withholding of documents:

18 U.S. Code § 1505

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so ...

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

Documents reviewed by Fox News show there are differences between Benghazi emails released through the federal courts to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch and emails released to the House oversight committee as part of its investigation into the attacks. The discrepancies are fueling allegations the administration is holding back documents to Congress.


"The key question is whether Congress now has all the documents," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a member of the oversight committee, said. As for differences between the two sets of documents, Chaffetz alleged: "They are playing games. The classification and redactions are different. Why should Judicial Watch get more than Congress after issuing a subpoena?"
The emails published by Judicial Watch last week, which showed additional White House involvement in shaping the public explanation of what happened, helped trigger the announcement Friday by House Speaker John

Boehner of a select committee to investigate.


Two of the emails, from Sept. 14, 2012, appear to be part of the deliberations in advance of then-U.N. ambassador Susan Rice's Sunday show appearances were she linked an anti-Islam video to the Benghazi attacks. The emails released to Judicial Watch include the names of those who participated in the email chain.


The same emails provided to the House committee do not include names.
While the text and subject line are redacted in full for both Judicial Watch and Capitol Hill, there are unexplained differences in the classification. The emails, originally marked "unclassified," were retroactively classified in February by the Department of State.

Discrepancies between Benghazi emails released to Congress, watchdog group | Fox News

Benghazi Syndrome on steroids.

And it will get even worse as the election gets closer.

Its all they've got.

 

[Plasmaball]

Oh, the silence is quite telling.

no its not...you have a giant thread on this subject...We dont need another one to go round and round in circles...

Christ you are stupid.

 

[TemplarKormac]

After the debate Crowley admitted that Mitt was correct.

Obama said terrorism once in his speech in the Rose Garden, but didn't specifically say any of the protests were terrorism. He was speaking of terrorism in general of course. Obama set Mitt up by saying he did mention terrorism. Mitt, of course called him on it, and Crowley, who was in on it, told Mitt he did. Well, he did "mention" terror, but he also called it a spontaneous protest for weeks later. So it can't be both.

The truth is he did NOT call 'IT' (Benghazi) an act of terror. He said "NO ACT OF TERROR", not that Benghazi was an act of terror. The only reason Crowley was prepared to back him up was because Obama and Crowley set it up. I know that doesn't seem possible, but their you have it. Obama did so poorly in the first debate that he rigged the second one.

Pres. Obama fact checks Mitt Romney's Epic Libya Fail - YouTube

CARBINE!

There's your answer.

That's simply false. He was talking ABOUT Benghazi just before he referenced acts of terror.

It's called context. Look it up.

It's called spin, and you're quite good at it. Crowley admitted she was wrong, and Obama never referred to Benghazi as an "act of terror." She was promptly forced to apologize for interjecting herself into a presidential debate.

No, Carbine, what you said is 'simply false.'