Wow, This is Pretty Epic (Republicans manufactured evidence on Benghazi)

[ProSense]

Wow, This is Pretty Epic

Josh Marshall

Generally, once partisan, tendentious sources leak information that turns out to be wrong, nothing’s ever done about it. That’s for many reasons, some good or somewhat understandable, mostly bad. But on CBS Evening News tonight, Major Garrett did something I don’t feel like I’ve seen in a really long time or maybe ever on a network news cast. He basically said straight out: Republicans told us these were the quotes, that wasn’t true. Quick transcript after the jump …

SCOTT PELLEY: Also at his news conference today the president called for tighter security for U.S. diplomatic facilities to prevent an attack like the one in Benghazi, Libya, last year that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Of course, Benghazi has become a political controversy. Republicans claim that the Administration watered down the facts in talking points that were given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for television appearances while Mr. Obama was running for reelection. Republicans on Capitol Hill claim that they had found proof of this in White House e-mails that they leaked to reporters last week. Well, it turns out some of the quotes in those e-mails were wrong. Major Garrett is at the White House for us tonight. Major?

MAJOR GARRETT: Scott, Republicans have claimed that the State Department under Hillary Clinton was trying to protect itself from criticism. The White House released the real e-mails late yesterday and here’s what we found when we compared them to the quotes that had been provided by Republicans. One e-mail was written by Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes. On Friday, Republicans leaked what they said was a quote from Rhodes. “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.” But it turns out, in the actual e-mail Rhodes did not mention the State Department. It read “We need to resolve this in a way that respects all the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.” Republicans also provided what they said was a quote from an e-mail written by State Department Spokesman Victoria Nuland. The Republican version notes Nuland discussing: “The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda’s presence and activities of al-Qaeda.” The actual e-mail from Nuland says: the “…penultimate point could be abused by Members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings…” The C.I.A. agreed with the concerns raised by the State Department and revised the talking points to make them less specific than the C.I.A.’s original version, eliminating references to al-Qaeda and affiliates and earlier security warnings. There is no evidence, Scott, the White House orchestrated these changes.

(ed.note: This is a rush transcription so some spelling and capitalization is off.)

http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/05/wow_this_is_pretty_epic.php

There were meaningful Benghazi lies after all

By Steve Benen

<...>

But if we're going to talk about real political scandals, can we at least have a conversation about Republicans lying to reporters about Benghazi?

<...>

For those who can't watch clips online, CBS's Major Garrett told viewers last night something news consumers don't usually see or hear: House Republicans gave journalists bogus information, apparently on purpose, in the hopes of advancing the right's version of the Benghazi story.

As Josh Marshall explained, "Generally, once partisan, tendentious sources leak information that turns out to be wrong, nothing's ever done about it. That's for many reasons, some good or somewhat understandable, mostly bad. But on CBS Evening News tonight, Major Garrett did something I don't feel like I've seen in a really long time or maybe ever on a network news cast. He basically said straight out: Republicans told us these were the quotes; that wasn't true."

Given what we now know, congressional Republicans saw all of these materials in March, couldn't find anything controversial, and moved on. But last week, desperate to manufacture a scandal, unnamed Republicans on Capitol Hill started giving "quotes" from the materials to reporters, making it seem as if the White House made politically motivated edits of Benghazi talking points.

<...>

Maybe this was just an innocent mistake, rather than a deliberate attempt at deception? Nope: "On Monday, Mother Jones noted that the Republicans' interim report included the correct version of the emails, signaling that more malice and less incompetence may have been at play with the alleged alterations."

- more -

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/05/17/18319321-there-were-meaningful-benghazi-lies-after-all

[uponit7771]

1. The issue here is they USED the altered emails in an official investigation. If they just released..

...them to the press and made hay then maybe the should be let off the hook but in THIS case they faked the emails and put them in a hearing.

This should be invetegated and heads should roll

[napkinz]

2. GOP scandal, GOP scandal, GOP scandal

Now where are the media on this?

I had better here the dogs barking!

[BlueCaliDem]

76. All media have gone "MUM" . . . except for a few, "Obama is plagued by scandals..." on MSNBC

this morning, no less.

Unbelievable.

[The Wielding Truth]

77. "Manufactured actual non scandals" is what they should say if they wish to give out some truth!

[George II]

78. "All media"??? How about CBS?

[BlueCaliDem]

80. Has CBS reported as extensively that this was a GOP scandal as they've been reporting

that it was an Obama scandal?

No. They make a token effort in unmasking the Republican lies, but that was it.

[MynameisBlarney]

4. Indeed.

This is not something to be swept under the rug.

[ProSense]

5. Exactly!

"Epic" is an understatement.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

6. Of course, if they investgate, they'll just cry persecution and the issue will die.

Much like the whole IRS non-scandal.

Makes me wanna holler.

[Dustlawyer]

9. Can you say "Perjury!"

[ProSense]

11. This goes beyond perjury. n/t

[Marr]

13. Agreed-- that's a big line they crossed. /nt

[Berlum]

79. The Republicans should be prosecuted for their Benghazi lies to Americans

Hell, the Republican bastards are the ones who slashed the budget for embassy security in the first place. This is entirely their FAIL, which they have now corrupted with eViL malicious intentional lies.

[Baitball Blogger]

3. Doesn't ANYONE get charged with fraud anymore?

[niyad]

7. and, of course, nothing will happen to these lying rotters.

[rurallib]

10. and the media will once more be the lapdogs

[tofuandbeer]

70. surprise!

[graham4anything]

8. I said days ago this reeks of the dirty trick take down of Dan Rather/Martha Mapes

This should be jail for someone in the republican party.

Who was the leaker?

and more and more, another thing to look into is how it came about that Mitt & the Repubs
were railing against the President BEFORE it happened it seemed.

Did they know it in advance that it would happen?

Who set it up?

And, who was the actual killer?

Trouble with the republicans is they play 1980s/1990s style games.
This is 2013.

If only the net was around and in wide use in 2000, the Miami Dade country professional agitators/rioteers would have been outed immediately.

[brett_jv]

72. They were outted on this site iirc

Pretty sure that was one of the first things I ever saw on this site, back in the day. Yeah, I lurked for a LOOOOONG time

[graham4anything]

74. again, a simple timeline shows impossible as DU started 1/20/2001

from wiki itself-(it's sort of neat to see this place have a wiki page).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Underground

Democratic Underground, also known as DU, is an online community for U.S. Democrats. Its membership is restricted by policy to those who are supportive of the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates for political office.[2] DU was established on January 20, 2001, the day Republican George W. Bush was inaugurated president

[AndyA]

12. This is the real Benghazi scandal

A political party so impotent that they must manufacture lies to make the other party look bad. The GOP has been doing this all along. That's the real scandal: lying to the American people.

Lies to start a war.

Lies to make the Democrats look bad.

Lies to justify their hatred and bigotry because a black man is President.

Lies about anything and everything, and they aren't called on those lies for the most part. The right wing has a news channel to prop up and promote their lies and a bevy of hate jocks to continually spew out the lies over and over again to make them seem like facts.

While this happens, the Dems counter with...mostly nothing. Crickets.

Oh sure, you have the progressives stand up and counter the lies with facts, but every Democrat in Congress should be talking of nothing but how the Republicans must lie in order to distract people from the damage the GOP is doing to America.

[ProSense]

14. Consider the complicity

National Review Cover Shows Hillary Playing Fiddle During Benghazi Attack (PHOTO)
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/national-review-cover-shows-hillary-playing-fiddle-during

[siligut]

16. Complicity is all they have

Complicity is vital when spreading lies. Their belief is that if they get enough sources to say it, enough people will believe it. But if this does manage to come back at them, there will be one or two scapegoats, no one important ever takes a fall.

[Botany]

15. 'Who's going to jail?'

[napkinz]

26. Willy Wonka would say this Oompa Loompa was a "bad egg"

And we know where bad eggs go in the land of Willy Wonka.

[spanone]

17. it IS epic, but not to our lazy media. it would interrupt scandal fever...

[ProSense]

18. This news has been

"it IS epic, but not to our lazy media. it would interrupt scandal fever..."

...out there for nearly a day, and not a peep from the complicit media in terms of calling for heads to roll.

They've jump to hype the phoniest GOP "scandal" talking points, elevating them, all of them, to the level of Watergate, and not a peep about this issue.

[Jack Rabbit]

19. So, the Benghazi scandal now boils down to a question of . . .

. . . what did Darrell Issa know and when did he know it?

[napkinz]

31. We have a winner! Ding! Ding! Ding!

I hope your words are repeated by every cable news network.

Could you post that question as its own thread for everyone to comment on?

I give you a BIG THUMBS UP!!!!!

I wish I could recommend your comment.

[Jack Rabbit]

38. OK

Please click here.

[napkinz]

39. big THANKS!!!!!!

[Historic NY]

57. I'd like to see him have to testify in a FEDeral Grand Jury....

once a criminal always a criminal fits him nicely.

[ffr]

64. Darrell Issa the said car thief? That Darrell?

I just wrote my state senator to task the DOJ with leveling punishment on public officials who alter public records. Enough white glove treatment for these criminals!!

[Cha]

68. Issa in the Hot Seat. Would not that be

major Karmic return?

[lastlib]

20. NOW we have a real SCANDAL!!

And it's nothing to do with Obama--it's the Republikans falsifying evidence! Just like Cheney's gang made up their own facts on Iraqi WMD's. Overwhelming evidence that those basturds will do anything to gain/hold power and money. They are NEVER to be trusted!!! And always to be REMOVED from any position of power/authority they may hold!!

[napkinz]

35. I'm still waiting for all the news networks to flash "breaking news"

Wonder why all of a sudden they are so silent.

[Scurrilous]

21. K & R

[AnnieK401]

22. Yeah, but will this get near the coverage as the IRS and AP stories?

I hope so. So far I've heard very little about it.

[go west young man]

23. Politically motivated changes were made to the talking points....

by Republicans. That should be our new talking point. We need to put these dinosaurs to rest once and for all.

[DallasNE]

24. How Long Had Republicans Been Plotting This

Boehner took the lead with harsh criticism of the Obama administration in this latest round, based on the doctored reports. We also know that, although invited, Boehner did not attend that March briefing where the Whitehouse allowed people to pour over these email's setting up deniability for Boehner at this time.

In another thread we learn the Heritage Foundation advised Republicans to not legislate and instead go all in on scandal. Right on queue, the NYT reported yesterday that a close aide to Hillary Clinton failed to report one source of income on a disclosure statement as required by law. Since I remember Judith Miller's role in the outing of Valerie Plame one has to wonder who's water the NYT is carrying here because this is obviously something that was given to them rather than some kind of investigative reporting they were doing on their own. And it is another attempt to attack Hillary Clinton. It just doesn't pass the smell test given everything that is going on right now.

[Arugula Latte]

25. A visual representation of the Benghazi "scandal" getting flipped on these mofos:

[Rex]

27. They have a REAL scandal now! IDIOTS!

I love watching the GOP implode!

[madamesilverspurs]

28. Can we call it sedition, yet?

[City Lights]

29. And what will happen to them? nt

[hughee99]

30. You mean the repukes went out and gave the press a version of events

that they knew wasn't 100% accurate. Isn't this the same thing they're accusing the WH/State Department of doing?

[ProSense]

32. No,

"You mean the repukes went out and gave the press a version of events that they knew wasn't 100% accurate."

...that's not what this is. This is Republicans doctoring e-mails, distributing these fake e-mails and using their own manufactured evidence as the source of a Congressional investigation.

From the OP:

Maybe this was just an innocent mistake, rather than a deliberate attempt at deception? Nope: "On Monday, Mother Jones noted that the Republicans' interim report included the correct version of the emails, signaling that more malice and less incompetence may have been at play with the alleged alterations."

[uponit7771]

33. No, they altered emails from the WH and put them in an official investigation...that's tampering wit

...evidence on the face of it

[hughee99]

34. From the OP...

The White House released the real e-mails late yesterday and here’s what we found when we compared them to the quotes that had been provided by Republicans. One e-mail was written by Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes.

The repukes gave the press emails with information that doesn't match the actual emails the white house released. Propaganda given to the press is not evidence in an official investigation. I don't think the story here is evidence tampering, though. The story ( I think) Dems should be pushing is that this party is so desperate for a scandal they'll make shit up. Once someone has proven willing to give knowingly false information to the press for personal (or political) gain, it can largely kill their credibility. This is an opportunity to turn the Darrell Issa and the other repukes on this into the boys who cried wolf. Although this may (and hopefully will) have a much larger fallout, as far as I can tell, it's still just lying to the press.

For the next "scandal" they push, the first question SHOULD be "can we trust any evidence they've provided"? When the press says "According to unnamed sources..." are those sources the same people who provided this crap?

[ProSense]

36. Wait,

"The repukes gave the press emails with information that doesn't match the actual emails the white house released. Propaganda given to the press is not evidence in an official investigation. I don't think the story here is evidence tampering, though. The story ( I think) Dems should be pushing is that this party is so desperate for a scandal they'll make shit up...."

...why exactly are trying to trivialize this? The story is "evidence tampering."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022858340

Rep. Issa on Benghazi report: "A lie to the American people"
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57584328/rep-issa-on-benghazi-report-a-lie-to-the-american-people/

[hughee99]

37. Evidence tampering is when you tamper with EVIDENCE.

For example, submitting falsified emails at a trial, destroying the original emails, etc... "Evidence tampering" ISN'T leaking false emails to the press for propaganda purposes. If that were the case, any time someone leaked information they knew to be untrue, it would be "evidence tampering".

[ProSense]

41. So

For example, submitting falsified emails at a trial, destroying the original emails, etc... "Evidence tampering" ISN'T leaking false emails to the press for propaganda purposes. If that were the case, any time someone leaked information they knew to be untrue, it would be "evidence tampering".

...tampering with evidence and then using said evidence as a part of a Congressional hearing is the same as "leaking false emails to the press"?

Republicans should be tried for treason for falsifying evidence, using Congressional hearings as a political tool (abuse of power) and continuing to deceive the public.

Steve King: Benghazi Cover-Up ‘Surpasses Watergate’

Count Rep. Steve King (R-IA) among those who thinks the purported government "cover-up" of the attack in Benghazi, Libya is worse than the mother of all American political scandals that ultimately derailed the presidency of Richard Nixon.

"The Obama administration's cover-up of the September 11, 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack surpasses Watergate," King wrote in an op-ed published Friday in US News.

- more -

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/steve-king-benghazi-cover-up-surpasses-watergate

[hughee99]

43. No doubt this hearing is being used as a political tool,

but unless the falsified emails are the ONLY reason for the hearing, then they can make the case (weak as it may be) that there were other reasons for the hearings (besides the altered emails). Many hearings are used as political tools, whether they are held for legitimate reasons or not. Simply put, while they may have falsified emails they sent to the press, you're never going to get the repukes, AS A GROUP (or probably even a few individuals), charged with "falsifying evidence" or "abuse of power" for the hearings. If Dems want to turn this situation to their advantage, I think their best bet is to let the hearings continue, let the repukes demonstrate to everyone they don't have a leg to stand on (as they are already doing), and bring this up at every opportunity in the future to discount what they say.

[ProSense]

46. What

"but unless the falsified emails are the ONLY reason for the hearing, then they can make the case (weak as it may be) that there were other reasons for the hearings (besides the altered emails). "

...does that have to do with falsifying the evidence? You're searching for an excuse to give cover to tampering with evidence.

[hughee99]

49. Again, emails provided to the press aren't evidence in the legal sense.

Evidence is presented at a trial. Evidence is given in sworn testimony in a hearing.

You've been around long enough to know this sort of horse shit isn't going to turn into something criminal that gets prosecuted (whether a crime actually occurred or not). I've already accepted that the criminal prosecution you seem to be pushing for isn't going to happen. At that point, it becomes a matter of how best to turn this to the Democrat's advantage. There's a way to do that which will probably have far more political value than a failed prosecution for what, lying to the press? I'd prefer to go that route.

[ProSense]

50. Actually,

"Evidence is presented at a trial. Evidence is given in sworn testimony in a hearing. "

...evidence related to the hearing isn't supposed to be tampered with and then used by the friggin party conducting the hearing.

Your point is nonsense.

[hughee99]

52. Tampered with? The original emails were in tact. Isn't that how they know

the repukes changed them, because the original emails don't match up with the version the repukes gave to the press.

Yes, certainly plenty of "dirty pool" going on here from the repukes side, but you're not going to be able to prove the criminal activity that you think seems so obvious. You know what happens when you charge someone with something criminal and can't prove it? Usually people think they didn't do it. The repukes are in the process of shooting themselves in the foot as we speak. They're going to get nothing from these hearings in the end, because there's nothing to get. I think we should take a page from our president from the debates and say to them "please proceed".

[ProSense]

53. Is there a reason

"Isn't that how they know the repukes changed them, because the original emails don't match up with the version the repukes gave to the press."

...you continue to talk in circles to avoid the point that there are hearings involved? You made a point about "a hearing" in your last comment and now you're back to talking about "the press."

Yes, certainly plenty of "dirty pool" going on here from the repukes side, but you're not going to be able to prove the criminal activity that you think seems so obvious. You know what happens when you charge someone with something criminal and can't prove it? Usually people think they didn't do it. The repukes are in the process of shooting themselves in the foot as we speak. They're going to get nothing from these hearings in the end, because there's nothing to get. I think we should take a page from our president from the debates and say to them "please proceed".

Summary: Yes, but...You know, but...Usually, but...and maybe we should drop it.

Republicans manufuctured evidence, there is no "but."

[hughee99]

58. You go ahead and make "evidence tampering" the issue...

and prosecute it (although I wouldn't hold my breath on that actually happening) and act shocked when either they can't prove any criminal activity, or some "overzealous staffer" in Issa's office takes the fall. Then, you can't even blame Issa for it later on, because it was thoroughly investigated and Issa was shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, to hear that one of his people would do such a thing.

You're not going to make any hay screaming about criminal activity or evidence tampering and trying to make a criminal case out of this. The advantage to be gained here is in the PR, and it's an advantage you lose if you try to make a criminal case of it. Let them finish the hearings and come up with nothing. The next time they want hearings for something remind them of the Benghazi hearings that they not tried to play the press and the public with fake emails that they knew to be untrue at the time, but ALSO came up with nothing, they're going to have to have a much higher standard before they try it again.

[ProSense]

59. Please,

You go ahead and make "evidence tampering" the issue...

and prosecute it (although I wouldn't hold my breath on that actually happening) and act shocked when either they can't prove any criminal activity, or some "overzealous staffer" in Issa's office takes the fall. Then, you can't even blame Issa for it later on, because it was thoroughly investigated and Issa was shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, to hear that one of his people would do such a thing.

You're not going to make any hay screaming about criminal activity or evidence tampering and trying to make a criminal case out of this. The advantage to be gained here is in the PR, and it's an advantage you lose if you try to make a criminal case of it. Let them finish the hearings and come up with nothing. The next time they want hearings for something remind them of the Benghazi hearings that they not tried to play the press and the public with fake emails that they knew to be untrue at the time, but ALSO came up with nothing, they're going to have to have a much higher standard before they try it again.

...stop making excuses for Republicans. They've done this before: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022858340

Someone needs to be fired or prosecuted, the facts will determine which.

[hughee99]

60. Which EXCUSES have I made?

Someone may be fired, someone may be prosecuted (though likely neither will happen) but the sure bet is that no one we WANT to see go will get caught by this. It's going to be another "overzealous staffer" like always. If you believe this to be the case (I do, you apparently do not), how best can our party benefit from their horse shit? Is there any way we can use THIS to prevent future obstruction or to further Democratic legislation? I think there is, and I've loosely described where the advantage is.

[ProSense]

61. Well,

"Someone may be fired, someone may be prosecuted (though likely neither will happen) but the sure bet is that no one we WANT to see go will get caught by this. It's going to be another "overzealous staffer" like always. If you believe this to be the case (I do, you apparently do not), how best can our party benefit from their horse shit? Is there any way we can use THIS to prevent future obstruction or to further Democratic legislation? I think there is, and I've loosely described where the advantage is. "

...at least you've moved away from suggesting that we drop it and that the only benefit is PR.

Someone getting fired is the least that should happen for tampering with evidence. Also, it's not up to me to determine who. It's not who I "want." The guilty party should be found and held accountable.

[hughee99]

62. The only benefit will be PR.

I'm not sure that anything criminal even occurred here, and I'm doubtful that if even if it had, they would have sufficient evidence to prove anything. I'm sure the repukes had their "overzealous staffer" picked out at the first sign of trouble.

I'm not suggesting we "drop it" as something we discuss (after all, reminding people of what they did provides the PR value), just that I don't see the point in prosecuting it if they don't have a slam dunk case, which I don't believe they will. If they couldn't even make the case against Roger Clemens, an elected official doesn't stand a chance of being convicted of anything like that.

I haven't moved away from anything I've said, I'm just being realistic about the situation and how we can turn the tables on the repukes.

[ProSense]

65. I'm going to

"The only benefit will be PR. I'm not sure that anything criminal even occurred here, and I'm doubtful that if even if it had, they would have sufficient evidence to prove anything. I'm sure the repukes had their "overzealous staffer" picked out at the first sign of trouble. "

...combine your statements to show how circular and dismissive they are, starting with your previous comment.

"Someone may be fired, someone may be prosecuted (though likely neither will happen) but the sure bet is that no one we WANT to see go will get caught by this. It's going to be another "overzealous staffer" like always...The only benefit will be PR. I'm not sure that anything criminal even occurred here, and I'm doubtful that if even if it had, they would have sufficient evidence to prove anything. I'm sure the repukes had their "overzealous staffer" picked out at the first sign of trouble.

The reason to get to the bottom of this is to clear up your doubts and uncertainty. Until the facts are known, you can't possible say that something isn't likely to happen.

Again, it has happened before: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022858340

[hughee99]

66. So what you're saying is we don't know if anything illegal or improper was done

but it looks like it's possible and we should investigate and get to the bottom of it?

[ProSense]

67. Clearly,

"So what you're saying is we don't know if anything illegal or improper was done but it looks like it's possible and we should investigate and get to the bottom of it?"

...that's not what I'm saying as the OP states specifically that the culprit is a Republican. Fact: Someone tampered with the evidence. It was either "illegal or improper." You were talking about consequences, remember?

[brett_jv]

73. Ok, I've just read through this discussion ...

And I still don't 'get' what 'evidence' you're saying has been 'tampered with'. The term 'evidence' in this context has a specific meaning. Are you suggesting that some Republican faked 'sworn' EVIDENCE in an actual criminal/civil 'legal proceeding', and if so, what proceeding are you referring to?

IOW, did (whoever) actually literally fake what was submitted in this proceeding (like a Congressional investigation, or a civil/criminal trial)? Because if not, then the claim you're making doesn't make much sense to me. From what I've seen so far it appears that we're dealing w/an occasion of someone modifying documents leaked to the press ... which, afaik, is not a crime.

I have to think you understand what I'm saying, so I'm left wondering ... what am I missing here? Did the GOP falsify actual documents that were part of a judicial proceeding, and I've just 'not seen that part of the story', or what?

[ProSense]

75. Well,

IOW, did (whoever) actually literally fake what was submitted in this proceeding (like a Congressional investigation, or a civil/criminal trial)? Because if not, then the claim you're making doesn't make much sense to me. From what I've seen so far it appears that we're dealing w/an occasion of someone modifying documents leaked to the press ... which, afaik, is not a crime.

I have to think you understand what I'm saying, so I'm left wondering ... what am I missing here? Did the GOP falsify actual documents that were part of a judicial proceeding, and I've just 'not seen that part of the story', or what?

...you are "missing" something, and if you "read through this discussion" and are still "missing," I don't think there is any point of explaining it to you. Maybe you could reread the discussion and try to find the point.

[ProSense]

42. It's a simple friggin concept. n/t

[Bill USA]

40. RECOMMENDED. WE NEED AN INVESTIGATION OF THIS. I WANT ANSWER GAD-DAMN IT, ANSWERS IMMEDIATELY!

[Berlum]

44. Republicans are lying anti-American scuzzbuckets. This is WAY below the belt.

Republicans are crapping all over America, again and again.

[underpants]

45. So... unlike the documents Dan Rather got about aWol --we know where these came from

well how about that

[Skittles]

47. QUESTION FOR YOU PROSENSE

WILL OBAMA DEMAND HEARINGS FOR THIS??? I AM SICK OF REPUKES RUNNING THE SHOW BASED ON BULLSHIT!!!!!

[napkinz]

48. Rachel covering the story right now on MSNBC!

nt

[Life Long Dem]

51. That would mean they found what they were looking for.

"manufactured evidence on Benghazi"

This is The Daily Show or SNL material.

[DirkGently]

54. Hope the source who lied to people gets burned.

[Historic NY]

55. Issa has experience in tampering with evidence...

[TheKentuckian]

56. Then prosecute them. Crying about coverage is worthless as is trying to win the blame in the press.

Want press coverage? Start perp walking Congress critters, hard to miss that but I have a feeling no one wants that, just to use it to win elections. There can't be actual real world consequences for the powerful and the wealthy. No, no.

[Logical]

63. +1 and a kick from me! n-t

[DonCoquixote]

69. Of course

the Media will realize they were hosed and crank this info at full volume.

(SARCASM)

[ck4829]

71. Wow, seems interesting. K&R.